There is a new attack by an anti-science and anti-environment talking head on a well respected climate scientist and his work. Mark Steyn is self publishing a book of quotes by scientists that allegedly disparage Dr. Michael Mann and the “Hockey Stick.” If the three examples Steyn provides to advertise his book are representative, Steyn’s book is unlikely to impress. Like previous attempts to separate a key individual from the herd, Steyn’s latest money making scheme could make him a few bucks (his fans seem gullible) but in the end will destroy anything that happens to be left of his credibility and, possibly, his legal argument that he is not actively and maliciously attempting to defame an individual.

Here’s the story.

Conservative political commentator Mark Steyn has a new book coming out. I haven’t seen it yet, but looking at the publicity material provided by Steyn (the book is self published) it appears to be a collection of scientist’s comments disparaging the work of Michael Mann and criticizing the famous “Hockey Stick” research. This is a bit odd because Steyn is currently being sued by Mann for defamation, and this book looks like it could be more defamation. It would appear he has not consulted his lawyers!

The Hockey Stick is a concept, and a graphic, that arose as the result of a paper produced in 1999 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. The researchers constructed a proxy northern hemisphere temperature curve, from ice cores and tree rings, which showed temperature variability over the previous 1,000 years. This curve was matched with direct temperature measurements from the previous century, and ultimately played an important role in demonstrating the effects of human greenhouse gas pollution on the global surface heat balance. The graph showed the dramatic change in surface temperature after industrialization, indicates a steady increase in temperature, and showed how dramatic this change is in relation to previous time periods. This and other related research, by the same group and others, also showed that previous known historical climate swings such as the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” were minor compared to recent warming (and also relatively regional, not global).

An example of the Hockey Stick Graph.

An example of the Hockey Stick Graph.

As with all important scientific work, there was some controversy but the work was good and over subsequent years it was verified by other research. Indeed, during the several years that have passed since the publication of that study, the global surface temperature has continued to rise, as expected. A post at Climate Progress, written in 2013 by Stefan Rahmstorf, “Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick,”, summarizes the confirmation of the “Hockey Stick” in a landmark study known as the PAGES 2K project. Of the confirmation of the Hockey Stick results by PAGES 2K, Rahmstorf writes (the graph he refers to is the one I placed above),

The first comparable hockey stick curve was published in 1998 and 1999 by Mann et al. – at that time based on data only from the northern hemisphere. …

For the scientific community, the confirmation of the old hockey stick is no surprise (except perhaps for the closeness of the match); many other climate reconstructions with a similar time evolution have already appeared since. Mann et al. at the time cautiously assumed a wide margin of uncertainty (light blue) because of their limited data base and a possible underestimation of the variance by their method; later reconstructions run largely within this margin. The work of Mann and colleagues has gained the highest recognition. For example, Bradley was honoured in 2007 with the Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union and Mann likewise in 2012, and both were (as well as Hughes) elected as fellows of the American Geophysical Union. Politically motivated attacks on their work were immense, however – both Bradley and Mann have published books about that experience.

The books are here and here.

The PAGES 2K work was published in Nature Geoscience as “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia” authored by the “PAGES 2K Consortium,” a long list of authors ranging across the entire alphabet from A (Moinuddin Ahmed) to Z (Eduardo Zorita). In essence, these authors found that Michael Mann and his colleagues were right, and the Hockey Stick configuration of global temperature change is correct.

Now, back to Mark Steyn’s forthcoming work. The book is, ““A Disgrace To The Profession” The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science: Volume I” Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn

Steyn provides three quotes that he implies are representative of the statements of “World’s Scientists” criticizing Mann and the Hockey Stick research. They are:

“Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes.”
-Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford

“Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred …because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”
-Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research

“Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.”
-Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

Now, if I was writing a book that mainly included quotes by experts on something, then picked out three quotes from the entire book to be representative, there are two things I would do. First, I would make sure the quotes were from credible experts. Second, I would make sure that the quotes are key indisputable examples of what those experts think. So, I asked myself, does it make sense that Jonathan Jones, Eduardo Zorita, and Simon Tett think Michael Mann got it all wrong, and the Hockey Stick concept is bunk?

I contacted all three of these individuals to see what they thought about this. Let’s start with Simon Tett. Frankly, I was very surprised to see his quote used by Steyn, because as far as I know, Dr. Tett is a mainstream climate scientist who has made important contributions to understanding variability in the climate record. Indeed, he has contributed to the the Hockey Stick reconstruction by advancing research on the role of aerosols. Tett and Michael Mann have published together on this issue. It made no sense that Tett would be bashing Mann and his work, because some of that is his own work. I wondered if the quote is taken out of context. Would Mark Steyn take a scholar’s quote out of context, totally changing the meaning, in order to associate that scholar with discredited ideas, or maybe turn one scholar against another?

Of course he would. That is his modus operendi. Maybe he likes getting sued?

Anyway, when I asked Simon Tett about this, he told me that he does not recall the quote, though perhaps it was from a private email (like this) and has all the context removed. Note that the quote is supposed to have come from 2001, so Tett assumes it would have been, had he actually said it, a criticism of the hockey stick paper. He told me, “I think my criticism was that it was likely missing some variances. My view then and still is that recent warming is very likely outside the range of natural variability.”

I have not seen Tett’s quote in its original exact context, but I think it is part of a larger bit of text that makes up part of the so-called Climategate 2.0 emails. If so, Tett said,

I think there are issues in Mann et al’s approach −− recall the Esper et al paper which produced a reconstruction with lots more low frequency variability than others. From the comment on the paper by Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn (attached) you can see that Mann’s reconstruction had the least variability of any of the reconstructions. Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes Mann et al got it wrong. How wrong is still under debate and the ECHO−G/HadCM3 results may be over-exaggerating the variance loss for some model-specific reasons.

This provides more context to Tett’s quote, indicating that this is an argument over variability in Mann et al’s reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last thousand years. But there is even more to it than that. There was vigorous argument over which models should ultimately be used in the IPCC report that included the Hockey Stick, including one (or two) by Tett that show a similar pattern to Mann et al’s original findings. In asking around about what was happening in those days I learned a lot more than needed for this humble blog post. Suffice it to say, there was arguing about important details, but not about the basic reality of climate change and recent warming. All of the discussion had to do with how much variation there was in the older record, and most of that uncertainty has been addressed over the subsequent decade.

Tett’s contribution to climate science has been to address that variability. He has recently co-authored articles with Mike Mann that confirm the Hockey Stick pattern of temperature changes and seek to understand that pattern in terms of natural and human drives of climate. Clearly, he is one of the nearly 100% of scientists who view global warming as real and caused by human greenhouse gas pollution.

So. That’s settled. Steyn got it wrong.

Then I looked at Eduardo Zorita.

He is a paleoclimatologist, so he’s in the game and may have expertise that matters. He has contributed to one IPCC report. He is famous for having suggested that climate scientists adjust their findings under political pressure. From Wikipedia:

Zorita was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that the “scientific debate [on climate change] has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas”, and that climate science students are “often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’.” Zorita continued, “some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties ….”

That was in 2009.

So, Zorita is a real climate scientist who has concerns about the way some of the research is conducted. That’s good. Scientists should always be concerned about how the research is conducted, and it is healthy to have such conversations. But is Zorita a Hockey Stick denier like Mark Steyn implies he is? No. I gave you a clue to this earlier in the post when I mentioned the PAGES 2K study. Did you notice that Zorita is an author of that major paper, known, among other things, for confirming the Hockey Stick?

Personally I can’t think of a worse choice to list as a person criticizing the hockey stick than an author of the largest effort by scientists that confirmed the hockey stick. Maybe Steyn didn’t know. Maybe he should know stuff before he writes a book about it.

Zorita did get back to me about Steyn’s use of his quote. He told me that the quote is essentially accurate, and that he has put it on his personal web page several years ago. He was concerned about the perception of objectivity in the IPCC process, so perhaps these researchers should not be part of the process given the controversy at the time caused by the famous Climategate hacked emails. However, he was careful to note that his statement was “not related to the quality of their scientific work. Actually, my statement was a suggestion to isolate the IPCC process from the credibility crisis linked to Climategate.” So this is about perception, not about the quality of the science or the validity of the Hockey Stick. He went on to say, “I feel that those political attacks, specially those against Michael Mann in the US, have no justification.”

Zorita told me that he felt the Hockey Stick was something of a public relations mistake. “The irony is that the hockey-stick is not a proof and not a disproof of anthropogenic climate change. As Stefan Rahmstorf correctly wrote, if the hockey-stick had not existed the case for AGW would not be stronger or weaker. But the hockey-stick had become its symbol and the subject of political manoeuvring.” Interesting idea. Zorita also indicated that he is in the camp of seeing much more variability in the older surface temperature record than the original Mann Et Al research indicated, adding “this has had no relevance for the the case of AGW.”

So, just as with the case of Tett, Zorita is a bad choice for Steyn to use in criticizing the scientists or the science, unless his book is going to support the current science of global warming, but with a detailed look at pre-industrial climate variation. I doubt that is the case.

Jonathan Jones, at Oxford, the third quoted scientist, is a physicist in an area of physics that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. I think he is a tutor there, but I’m not sure. He published a few things many years ago then seems to have trailed off in academic activity, but nothing on climate science. Back in the day, he went after the “Hockey Stick” and actually did one of those “Freedom of Information” requests to obtain some data he thought was being kept from him, in order to strike a blow for freedom. (That data was already being shared among various collaborators, but apparently not among random people who demanded it … this is a huge data base and not something you pop in an email and send off to someone.) He got the data, but never did anything with it as far as I can tell. The rapidly growing consensus on human caused climate change did not fall to some insightful analysis by Jonathan Jones.

Jones responded to my question by simply sending the link to his original quote. The context turns out to be interesting. The original quote by Jones was a lengthy screed critical of the climate science and the scientists in which he explicitly implores Richard Betts to denounce the hockey stick. (Betts is a climate scientist at the UK’s Met Office, and a lead author for the IPCC 4th assessment report and other IPCC documents.) Jones indicates that the whole global warming thing is pathological science, will eventually go away, and he hopes he can soon get back to his own research in an utterly unrelated field. Which, I think, he may have done.

Maybe Jonathan Jones, as a non-climate scientist who is also a climate science denier, is an appropriate person to quote in Steyn’s book. One in three … not a very good result.

I’m thinking this is not going to be a very big book. Certainly not a very good one. Maybe Steyn is counting on a lot of pre-orders.

Comments

  1. #1 Paul A
    June 22, 2015

    Is it a book, or is it Steyn’s chapter from the book “Climate Change: The Facts” (or, as it is already being referred to, “Climate: Change The Facts”)? Published by the Australian think tank Institute of Public Affairs (donors include fossil fuel and tobacco interests) other contributors include Watts, Plimer, Michaels, Lindzen, Lawson, Delingpole and Bolt.

    Even it is only a single chapter of a book it is still desperately thin stuff.

  2. #2 Greg Laden
    June 22, 2015

    Paul, it is a forthcoming book, not an already published chapter or book. You can go to his site and pre-order a print version, and eBook versions will be available, he says, at the usual outlets at a later time

    Unless he reads this blog post and realized he is making a terrible mistake and nixes the whole project, of course!

  3. #3 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 22, 2015

    Jonathan Jones’s er… ahh… let us say “contribution” is the best part. I can hardly wait to read Steyn’s book (which I am sure will be worth -100% of the cost).

  4. #4 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 22, 2015

    “Unless he reads this blog post and realized he is making a terrible mistake and nixes the whole project, of course!

    If he did that, how would he convince people to give to him their money? Run as a Republican Party presidential candidate? (Hee! I’m hilarious!)

  5. #5 Paul A
    June 22, 2015

    OK Greg, my mistake. A whole book, out of next to no material.

  6. #6 RickA
    United States
    June 22, 2015

    I imagine there will be another book after the trial between Mann and Steyn is over. I fear Mann will not like the book very much should Steyn win on the basis that truth is a complete defense against a charge of defamation.

    Steyn will of course be attempting to prove that the Mann hockey stick is fraudulent, either on summary judgment or at trial.

    This issue is not as clear-cut as you appear to believe.

  7. #7 Brainstorms
    June 22, 2015

    One cannot include defamatory remarks in an attempt to draw attention to truthiness. That would not constitute a defense against a charge of defamation.

    Steyn will, of course, have a very difficult time proving that the Mann hockey stick is fraudulent, either on summary judgment or at trial.

    This issue is not as clear-cut as RickA appears to believe.

  8. #8 Greg Laden
    June 22, 2015

    Rick, I’m not sure that the question of the “Hockey Stick” being fraudulent is going to be a very good defense. Courts tend to side with the actual science. In any event, this post is not about that law suit, so I’m not sure how my “belief” in that regard is characterized here. I’ve mostly avoided saying much about it because I’m not an expert on civil law.

  9. #9 Greg Laden
    June 22, 2015

    Brainstorms, I understand that this is correct. Defamation is the issue here, as you say.

  10. #10 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 22, 2015

    “… should Steyn win on the basis that truth is a complete defense against a charge of defamation.”

    There is no change any judge will believe Steyn’s false and defamatory claims are true. There are morons for judges, but they are extremely rare.

  11. #11 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 22, 2015

    “Steyn will of course be attempting to prove that the Mann hockey stick is fraudulent…..”

    Dr Mann already tried to disprove the hockey stick. DR Bradley and Dr Hughes also tried to disprove the hockey stick. MBH tried for over a year to disprove the hockey stick before they allowed the hockey stick to be published.

    Drs Mann, Bradley, and Hughes are probably the three scientists at the top of the list for scientists who tried to disprove the paper and the graph. Since Drs Mann, Bradley, and Hughes could not do so, Steyn is not likely to be able to—- and if he can, Drs Mann, Bradley, and Hughes will praise and applaud and thank him for doing so.

    Uh…. good luck with that.

  12. #12 RickA
    United States
    June 22, 2015

    Greg and Desertphile. Sorry I didn’t mean to distract.

    My main point is there are sure to be more books to come.

  13. #13 daedalus2u
    June 22, 2015

    If the publisher of this “book” repeats the same defamatory claims, is that a separate instance of defamation? Does Mann get to go after the (presumably) deeper pockets of the publisher?

    Is the publication contract and negotiation notes between an author of allegedly defamatory material and the publisher of that allegedly defamatory material discoverable?

  14. #14 RickA
    United States
    June 22, 2015

    daedalus2u.

    Yes. Without amending the pleadings, Mann cannot add them to the current lawsuit – but he can keep filing separate lawsuits for each post, book or what have you.

    Certainly, the contract would be discoverable in the later separate lawsuit (not the current one however).

    Mann won’t do that (in my opinion) – as he could have sued over many Steyn posts over the four years and has chosen not to.

    I suspect that Mann deeply regrets suing Steyn and wishes he could get out of the lawsuit without having to be deposed and answer questions about his hockey stick graph.

  15. #15 Christopher Winter
    June 22, 2015

    Steyn is charging $19.95 for the book. I’m sure he’s doing this to raise funds, having noticed the spate of recent self-published books purporting to debunk climate science. Judging by customer reviews on Amazon, they appear to be selling well.

  16. #16 dean
    June 22, 2015

    I suspect that Mann deeply regrets suing Steyn and wishes he could get out of the lawsuit without having to be deposed and answer questions about his hockey stick graph.

    Curious: since, as noted, its validity has been demonstrated, why would you say this? Because having that fact get more public hearing will contradict the message of the denialist world?

  17. #17 Brainstorms
    June 22, 2015

    OTOH, by having the lawsuit go forward, it gives Mann an additional platform by which to get the science out there & in front of the public to become aware of.

    By having a court proceeding provide (the appearance of, at least, in the public eye) affirmation of the science, he may find it more than worth his while.

    After all, some corporations & celebs enjoy being involved in lawsuits: “Free” publicity, and as they say in show business, “Any publicity is good publicity”.

    Even if there are dispersions cast in Mann’s direction, people who are unfamiliar with the issue will take a closer look out of curiosity and will be exposed to the fact that he’s the target of a smear campaign — and they’ll want to know why someone is smearing a “good scientist” and, by extension, why they’re smearing “good science”.

  18. #18 Hank Roberts
    June 22, 2015

    > Judging by customer reviews on Amazon,
    > they appear to be selling …..

    Ah, there’s a reliable index for you.
    No doubt when Amazon starts paying only by counting pages read, you’ll see “It’s a real page-turner” appearing in reviews.

  19. #19 Brainstorms
    June 22, 2015

    Or, “It’s a real ass-wiper.” As the case may be.

    (Hope they used soft paper…)

  20. #20 Russell Seitz
    June 22, 2015

    Darn- I was expecting Mark to elaborate on on Viking winemaking in Greenland.

  21. #21 Christoffer Bugge Harder
    Denmark
    June 22, 2015

    RickA: That suspicion can be put to rest easily. As has been made clear to you previously, Mann has, in fact, already answered all thinkable questions regarding the hockey stick. The data are public and have been cross-examined by all his arch-enemies, it has been the subject of several political cross-examinations, he has even had his private emails in the process made public and had these run through yet another cross-examination in the wake of the CRU hack. And yet, all of this has come to nothing, all subsequent studies have confirmed Mann et al.s findings with respect to anything relevant to AGW, and even scientific adversaries like Zorita have made clear that there is no substance to the allegations. I think it it fair to say that no other single scientific study or scientist has ever been cross-examinated to any remotely similar degree.

    If you believe that there are still anything incriminating that could possibly be found about the 1998/99 Hockey Stick, then you are seriously deluded. And I´d hazard a guess that Mann is quite happy indeed by having Steyn exhaust his funds. 🙂

  22. #22 northierthanthou
    http://northierthanthou.com
    June 22, 2015

    I’d say anyone who devotes an entire book to quote mining has pretty well labeled himself a dilettante. Thanks for going the extra mile on these particulars.

  23. #23 FLwolverine
    June 22, 2015

    Denialists must be very disappointed that Steyn et al have not moved vigorously forward with the case so they can put Dr Mann on the stand and find out the “TRUTH”. Instead they keep wandering around in the procedural forest of the anti-SLAPP laws, trying their damnedest to never get to trial. Steyn probably needs to raise money to pay his legal fees.

  24. #24 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 22, 2015

    “I suspect that Mann deeply regrets suing Steyn and wishes he could get out of the lawsuit ….”

    You are being silly again. Dr Mann regrets being forced to sue the abuser, but he is happy the law suit is going extremely well in his favor. The last thing Dr Mann wants to go is “get out of the law suit:” it’s all going his way, with two judges already having ruled that the prima facie evidence shows Dr Mann will win. If Steyn would quit avoiding deposition and discovery, the case would already have been won by Dr Mann.

    “… without having to be deposed and answer questions about his hockey stick graph.”

    Dr Mann has always been happy and eager to answer any and all questions about MBH98 and MBH99. If you have any questions about the hockey stick graph, ask him.

  25. […] that it will be a bombshell, because Steyn has provided us with three of the juiciest quotations.  Greg Laden has now ferreted out the sources of these quotations, and concluded that one is from a legitimate […]

  26. #26 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 22, 2015

    “Curious: since, as noted, its validity has been demonstrated, why would you say this?”

    He is writing political ideology, which is therefore silly. Dr Mann has no regrets about the law suit except that it was necessary; Dr Mann appears elated and cheerful at how well the law suit has gone for him.

    As for questions about the hockey stick paper, what questions are there left to ask that have not already been answered?

  27. #27 William M. Connolley
    June 22, 2015

    Zorita is backpedalling somewhat; he’s embarrassed now by what he said then, which was and is unjustifiable. See-also http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/28/zorita-goes-for-the-jugular/

    As for JAJ, by their wiki contributions such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judith_Curry&diff=prev&oldid=651161387 shall ye judge them.

  28. #28 dean
    June 22, 2015

    Desertphile, I had a pretty good idea what he was doing. I was interested in how he’d phrase it.

  29. #29 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 22, 2015

    “Desertphile, I had a pretty good idea what he was doing. I was interested in how he’d phrase it.”

    He phrased it comically. Oy vey. It has been a few weeks since I asked Dr. Mann how happy he is with how the law suit it going, so hey maybe he’s sad about it now. Naw…..

    Steyn, meanwhile, appears to be trying every conceivable trick to try and delay progress in the trial (maybe I’m wrong). Two judges already stated the case for malice has merit, and the rest of every defamation case is easy after that.

  30. #30 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 22, 2015

    Comment #25: “Third, you never know, some jury might be stupid enough to buy the defense.”

    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-genius-legal-gambit/

    Orenthal Simpson was found to be not guilty, so it could happen. My suspicion is that the defamation suit will be settled in Dr Mann’s favor before any actual trial: it is hugely in Steyn’s financial interest to settle the case than to have the case taken to judge or jury.

    Dr Mann will want a judge to hear the case; Steyn will want a jury. But Steyn is still screwed because judges can and often do nullify jury acquittals in defamation cases when the judge sees the defendants are guilty but the jury does not.

  31. #31 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 22, 2015

    This is odd:

    In the fall of 2014, not a single amicus brief was filed on Dr Mann’s behalf, not one. He claims he’s “taking a stand for science”, but evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for him.

    1) There is no such thing as an “amicus brief.” I assume the silly goose means “amicus curiae” and “amici curiae.”

    2) Why specify the fall of year 2014? How many amici curiae were presented at other seasons in other years?

    3) The subject is defamation, not science.

    4) The amicus curiae brief that was filed has been from people who falsely believed the issue is one of free speech, not defamation.

    5) Two judges already found in favor of Dr Mann when they concluded the issue is defamation out of malice, not free speech; the amicus curiae brief filed in the case was already rejected by the courts as non sequitur.

    6) Why the bloody hell would scientists file amici curiae in a defamation law suit? This is like asking bakers to do so, or bartenders, or barbers.

  32. #32 izen
    June 22, 2015

    Almost all of Mark Steyn’s writing is attacking or disparaging a person or institution.

    The Only time he has written in praise of the integrity and probity, along with the business acumen of an individual it was a hagiographic series of articles supporting convicted embezzler, fantasist and fraudster (lord) Conrad Black.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270492/reincarceration-conrad-black-mark-steyn

  33. #33 Norris Wood
    June 22, 2015

    Thanks for the tip. I can’t wait to buy the book.

  34. #34 See Noevo
    June 22, 2015

    I haven’t bothered reading the above piece. I just want to say that Mark Steyn is one of my favorites.

  35. #35 H. Lee Grove
    United States
    June 22, 2015

    At this point in the climate change progression, it seems absurd that such a book would be written; and that begs the questions: 1) When will there be a sufficient rewriting of law (within that body of law that has been utterly disregarded in all possible categories by the present and previous administrations), such that there is at least a possibility of pursuing criminal charges against those who would sacrifice the planet for a buck?; 2) are these people so well insulated within their golden cocoons of delusional self-granduer and greed that they really believe they are fooling the right people, if anyone at all that isn’t the result of multiple generations of inbreeding…

    it is truly disturbing that, given the extraorinary intelligence of so many people on the planet, the planet and its inhabitants will be sacrificed the narcissistic needs of the least among us.

  36. #36 Dan
    Las Vegas
    June 23, 2015

    Holy Christ, most of you are clueless:
    1) Steyn has responded to Mann’s written discovery, a year ago.
    2) Mann refuses to respond to Steyn’s
    3) Steyn is not part of the Anti-Slapp appeal his, co-defendants are. Steyn has said, repeatedly, he wants to finish discovery, including deposing Mann (which will include questions, I am sure, on why Mann lied when be claimed to have be a noble prize recipient, and was forced to amend his complaint when that was proven false). That is why Steyn responded to Mann’s discovery, immediately.
    4) In order to win, Mann has to prove Steyn knowlingly made false statements about Mann because Mann is a public figure. Thus, the issue is not whether the hockey stick graph is false, but whether Steyn knew it was false, and made the statements anyway. It is a very tough standard to meet. RickyA is right; Mann likely regrets suing Steyn, who has been sued a fee times before, always saw it through to the end, and has never lost.
    5) The case is not about science. It is about free speech. Courts don’t decide science, contrary to what the moron above said about courts “siding with science.” This case is about free speech, which courts do decide, and which is why many media organizations, including the New York Times, as well as civil rights organizations like the ACLU have filed amici briefs in support of Steyn. Not one single amici brief was filed on Mann’s behalf. Science should be decided in the lab, and people should be free to express whatever opinions they want. The fact that Mann resorts to suing suggests, to me, he lacks confidence in his science and wants to silence his critics.

    If the science is so settled, why not let it speak for itself?

  37. #37 dean
    June 23, 2015

    I just want to say that Mark Steyn is one of my favorites.

    Let me guess: that’s because he is as clueless about science and fundamentally dishonest as you?

  38. #38 Greg Laden
    June 23, 2015

    Dan, I’m not sure if you have (most of this, maybe all of this) right. For one thing, I’m pretty sure Steyn’s libel would not be about whether or not he understands the science of the hockey stick.

    The case is not about free speech, that is clear and has been clear all along.

  39. #39 Dan Andrews
    Canada
    June 23, 2015

    “If the science is so settled, why not let it speak for itself?”

    Usually it does speak for itself in the peer-reviewed literature. Some people, though, don’t like what it has to say so they misrepresent it, claim it doesn’t say what it does say, pretend it has never been reaffirmed by other independent studies, and generally lie about it either through sheer ignorance or through a deliberate effort to mislead.

    Perhaps you would like to clarify which science you are referring to though, and then we can have a look to see if it is speaking for itself. Let us know where you’ve looked for yourself so we don’t waste our time pointing you in places you’ve already been.

  40. #40 Christopher Winter
    June 23, 2015

    Dan (#36): If the science is so settled, why not let it speak for itself?

    What gives you the impression that it isn’t being allowed to speak for itself? I mean. aside from people who claim, as Mark Steyn does, that climate science is a tissue of lies trumped up by a vast conspiracy — of which Dr. Mann is the ringleader.

  41. #41 RickA
    United States
    June 23, 2015

    Greg #38:

    Dan is correct. It is a free speech case. Anti-slap is all about free speech (that is what the current appeal is all about).

    All Steyn needs to do to win (if he can ever get to a decision point) is to show 1) that what he said is his opinion and not a statement of fact or 2) that even if it is a statement of fact that it is true.

    That his opinion piece is an opinion is a no brainer and he will win on that alone.

    Even if what he said is a factual statement and not an opinion – what he said was true, so he will win on that basis as well.

    Not only did Mann censor the R2 statistic, but the graph itself is all about attempting to deceive the reader (hide the decline).

    Of course reasonable minds can differ – but Steyn only need show his interpretation is reasonable and he wins.

    You should head over to Lucia’s The Blackboard for some great discussion about this lawsuit:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/mann-v-stein-more-legal-moves/

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/the-meaning-of-r2-in-pictures-mann-v-steynsimbergceinro/

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/steyn-mann-steam-roller/

    Just to name a few threads about this case.

  42. #42 Russell
    June 23, 2015

    Science is not as simple as Dan Andrews imagines . He rather misses the point when he writes

    “Some people, though, don’t like what it has to say so they misrepresent it, claim it doesn’t say what it does say, pretend it has never been reaffirmed by other independent studies, and generally lie about it either through sheer ignorance or through a deliberate effort to mislead.’

    Because those who want science to speak on behalf of their beliefs are at liberty to aim their activism, and research intended to reinforce it, at both scientific organizations and the journals they publish.

  43. #43 dean
    June 23, 2015

    “(hide the decline)”

    How so you something that doesn’t exist?

  44. #44 dean
    June 23, 2015

    Sorry. Declined manual ability with phone keyboard.

    How do you hide something that doesn’t exst?

  45. #45 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    June 23, 2015

    RickA:

    All Steyn needs to do to win (if he can ever get to a decision point) is to show 1) that what he said is his opinion and not a statement of fact or 2) that even if it is a statement of fact that it is true.

    This has been discussed on previous posts. With regard to 2, it is almost certainly false. As for 1, wrong, wrong, wrong. Even if Steyn truly believes that Mann is a fraud, that doesn’t shield him. If he acted with malice (which has a different definition in law than it does in normal discourse), then he will lose, no matter how genuine his convictions.

  46. #46 Greg Laden
    June 23, 2015

    Rick, the anti-slap appeals have gone nowhere. This is not a free speech case. It is a libel case.

  47. #47 RickA
    United States
    June 23, 2015

    Julian #45:

    It is Mann’s burden to prove actual malice, not Steyn’s to show its absence. The law about actual malice doesn’t apply to opinion – only statements of fact. So I disagree with you about #1. If the court finds his opinion is an opinion than even if he made it with malice (which in my opinion he did not) he will win – because opinion is not actionable.

    By the way – Steyn never called Mann a fraud (in the opinion piece being litigated) – instead he said the hockey stick was fraudulent. Legally this makes a big difference.

    But we will see (I suppose).

  48. #48 RickA
    June 23, 2015

    Greg #46:

    I am not sure what you mean – the anti-slap appeals have gone nowhere. That issue is still on appeal and the entire case is on hold until the issue of whether you can even appeal a denial of dismissal on anti-slap grounds is decided (Steyn did not appeal by the way – Dan is correct about that also).

    So if the appeals court decides the issue can be appealed – then they will decide if the entire case should be dismissed or not (i.e. whether the district court was correct to deny dismissal). Mann’s case could be dismissed on appeal and the only thing left would be Steyn’s counterclaim. Or the denial of dismissal could be affirmed and the case will then proceed – first with discovery – then with potential summary judgment motions and finally with the trial. Discovery of Mann was stayed by the appeal and Steyn is eager to take Mann’s deposition.

  49. #49 Greg Laden
    June 23, 2015

    I was referring to the anti-anti-slap claims.

    In any event, I think the general thinking is that Mann’s suit is going to be settled in his favor.

  50. #50 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 23, 2015

    “Rick, the anti-slap appeals have gone nowhere. This is not a free speech case. It is a libel case.”

    Rick’s alternate reality is… spooky. Two courts already ruled that Dr Mann is likely to demonstrate malice and defamation (the two, added together, equal libel); two courts already dismissed the fraudulent assertion that Dr Mann’s suit is a SLAPP. The issue has already been settled in a court of law— *TWICE.*

    If a judge (or a jury) was allowed to rule on the case right now, today, the suit would be settled in Dr Mann’s favor—- and Dr Mann would jump at the chance to have the case ruled on RIGHT THIS MINUTE since he knows he has already won.

    In Rick’s world, Dr Mann is fleeing from the glaring light of truth while lamenting filing the law suit and is sure he will lose— and he did it all to silence the free market fundamentalist heroes who are thwarting The Fascist Socialist Agenda.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, the libel suit is going enormously well for Dr Mann, with all of the hard work already done and already ruled on. There is only the delays imposed by the defendants to tolerate, and the court will not tolerate the delays forever.

  51. #51 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 23, 2015

    “It is Mann’s burden to prove actual malice, not Steyn’s to show its absence.

    Yeah, he did that already, twice, and the courts agreed.

  52. #52 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 23, 2015

    “In any event, I think the general thinking is that Mann’s suit is going to be settled in his favor.”

    If the defendants have any sense left at all, they will settle—- and then give their cult followers excuses for why.

  53. #53 RickA
    United States
    June 23, 2015

    Desertphile #50 and #51:

    Sorry, but you are not correct in your legal analysis.

    When the court denied the slap dismissal request, the court had to consider all of the allegations of the complaint as true (taken as true) and then see if the case should still be dismissed.

    Should the case not be dismissed on appeal (the appeal is still pending) – all of the allegations of the complaint will not be considered “taken as true” on either summary judgment or at trial – Mann will actually have to met his burden of proof and show defamation.

    Mann will have to prove Steyn’s statement was a statement of fact (and not opinion), that he was defamed (damaged) and that it was made with actual malice. None of this has been done yet.

    So the denial to dismiss doesn’t mean what you think it means (nor the pending appeal).

    Mann actually hasn’t proven anything yet (twice).

    Nothing substantive has happened yet (twice).

    Discovery hasn’t even been done yet (except Steyn has produced stuff).

    I am a little confused about your “twice” – are you referring to the appeal as the second decision? That hasn’t been decided yet. Or are you referring to the district court judge change? What are your two decisions?

    Thanks for your reply.

  54. #54 RickA
    June 23, 2015

    Here is a snippet of the district court decision which is being appealed – the “in the light most favorable to plaintif . . . as the court must . . .f” is what I was referring to above as “taken as true” and this standard only applies on a motion to dismiss – not a motion for summary judgment or at trial itself :

    Weisberg:

    Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the court must on a motion to dismiss, a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data” was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm. …

    Turning to the special motion of defendants National Review and Steyn to dismiss Count VII, when Mr. Steyn republished Mr. Simberg’s words, he stopped short of wholeheartedly endorsing the offensive Sandusky metaphor. Nevertheless, Mr. Steyn did not disavow the assertion of fact that Dr. Mann had “molested and tortured data,” and he added insult to injury by describing Dr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” … In context, calling Dr. Mann’s work “fraudulent” is itself defamatory…

  55. #55 Craig Thomas
    June 23, 2015

    “If the science is so settled, why not let it speak for itself?”

    I think the fact that we have now seen over 2 dozen independent published science research efforts that all confirm the correctness of Mann’s “Hockey Stick” kinda speaks for itself, don’t you think?

  56. #56 Craig Thomas
    June 23, 2015

    As for Steyn’s libel – this has nothing to do with science, it’s just an illegal act on Steyn’s part that will hopefully see Steyn collide head-on with the reality of the USA’s legal system.

  57. #57 Michael Wells
    June 23, 2015

    Dan at #36: “Science should be decided in the lab”

    Deja vu all over again – takes me back to the days when I was paying attention to creationists. Why is this sentiment usually uttered by people defending commenters who don’t do science, never go near a lab, and attack scientific work in the court of public opinion via op-ed pieces and popular books and magazines? If the lab is the proper venue, then Steyn should get his ass into a lab.

    “people should be free to express whatever opinions they want”

    It’s my opinion, Dan, that you have a history of shoplifting in malls. That’s just my opinion, of course, like it’s just Steyn’s opinion that Mann committed scientific fraud.

  58. #58 Kevin O'Neill
    June 23, 2015

    RickA, there is likely no need need to prove malice : “libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis), or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for “general damages,” and not just specific losses. ”

    The defendants specifically accused Mann of crimes committed using government funds. If that charge is false it’s libel per se.

    What happened to all the rejoicing over discovery? Instead they’re trying to get the lawsuit dismissed. Occam’s razor would tells me that it is the defendants, not the plaintiff, that are fearful of discovery.

  59. #59 John Mashey
    June 24, 2015

    is case has generated an amazing number of comments from people who seem totally clueless, never seemed to have talked to relevant lawyers about such cases.

    Any good lawyer will tell you to avoid filing defamation cases, unless they think there’s a good chance to win.

    Unlike most people opining, I know some of the lawyers involved, i..e. see recent defense against Ed Wegman+Yasmin Said”s defamation $2M claim masquerading as tortious interference.

    Although it may not be obvious, that case is peculiarly related, as the Wegman Report was the highest-profile attempt to disprove MBH99, although even they didn’t try to claim fraud.

  60. #60 Bernard
    June 24, 2015

    You people need to put some distance between yourselves and Mann, least people be laughing at you

  61. […] This article has been cross posted from Science Blogs. […]

  62. #62 BBD
    June 24, 2015

    John Mashey

    Unlike most people opining, I know some of the lawyers involved

    Yes, but why should they listen to you when instead they can post unmitigated bollocks in blog comments?

    That’s just not how it works in the climate ‘debate’.

    😉

  63. #63 RickA
    United States
    June 24, 2015

    Kevin O’Neill #58:

    Reread your cite again and search for “public figure”.

    Mann is a public figure and actual malice is a requirement for his burden of proof.

  64. #64 cosmicomics
    Denmark
    June 24, 2015

    Kevin O’Niell #58 is correct. There is no need to prove malice. Here’s another source:

    “While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.”
    http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153

    The passage from Judge Weisberg’s decision, quoted by RickA, would seem to be based on libel per se:

    “…a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data” was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm. …”

    Judge Weisberg also wrote:

    “In Count VII, plaintiff alleges that CEI published, and National Review republished, the following defamatory statement: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” The allegedly defamatory aspect of this sentence is the statement that plaintiff “molested and tortured data,” not the rhetorically hyperbolic comparison to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. …

    The statement “he has molested and tortured data” could easily be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff distorted, manipulated, or misrepresented his data. Certainly the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, which means the questions of whether it was false and made with “actual malice” are questions of fact for the jury. … [T]o state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation. …”
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/01/23/dc-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-mann-defamation-complaint/

    I don’t pretend to be a legal expert, but to me both the legal definition of libel and Judge Weisberg’s reasoning would indicate that Steyn is in deep trouble. I see Steyn’s book as a not particularly intelligent act of desperation. He’s gotten himself into a hole, and he keeps on digging.

  65. #65 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 24, 2015

    “The defendants specifically accused Mann of crimes committed using government funds. If that charge is false it’s libel per se.

    It can also be a case of being wrong, which is why Dr Mann gave the liars enough time to apologize.

  66. #66 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 24, 2015

    “I see Steyn’s book as a not particularly intelligent act of desperation. He’s gotten himself into a hole, and he keeps on digging.

    Thank you for the link to the Weisberg quote. As for Styne’s new book, that sure looks like malice to me, with the attempt of harming Dr Mann’s career. Steyn’s book appears to *ONLY* exist as an attempt to harm Dr Mann, since there is no social or scientific reason to misquote scientists to falsely make it appear those scientists think Dr Mann did something wrong.

  67. #67 dean
    June 24, 2015

    I haven’t seen it yet, but looking at the publicity material provided by Steyn (the book is self published)…

    Did he go the self publishing route because
    a) he wanted to get it out quickly?
    or
    b) he knew sales would be low?
    or
    c) no respectable publisher would touch it?
    or
    d) some other reason?

  68. #68 John Mashey
    June 24, 2015

    Malice: “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” may apply, since the word has a different meaning in law than in common usage, which numerous Steyn-supporters seem not to know.
    Wegman+Said+Johns didn’t seem to know either, when they claimed malice. 🙂

    Note that “Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report” documents the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s long history of trying to manufacture attacks on climate science, including recruitng McKitrick, promoting him, Essex and McIntyre…
    Ie, there’s a pretty good roadmap for discovery, if any such is needed. One might for instance ask how CEI’s Myon Ebell had copies of Joe Barton’s intimidation letters to M, B and H before they all got them. One might ask for lists of attendees at certain meetings. One might ask for communications with George Marshall Institute, etc, etc. Discovery would be such fun, which may be why CEI especially wouldn’t want it to happen 🙂

  69. #69 GregH
    June 24, 2015

    See Noevo: I haven’t bothered reading the above piece. I just want to say that Mark Steyn is one of my favorites.

    Hilarious! Maybe Comedy is your calling.

    As a tribute to your contributions, this quote should be the first comment in any climate change discussion.

  70. #70 BBD
    June 24, 2015

    John

    Discovery would be such fun, which may be why CEI especially wouldn’t want it to happen 🙂

    Indeed.

    One of my pet hopes is that eventually, some clown will push on the wrong door and all sorts of interesting things will come cascading out and bury them.

  71. #71 cosmicomics
    Denmark
    June 24, 2015

    Based on John Mashey’s comment #68 I looked up the legal definition of malice, and I discovered two things. The first is that:

    “Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a “public figure” to win a lawsuit for defamation.”

    So if Mann is considered to be a public figure, then RickA is correct in writing that Mann would have to prove malice. But:

    “Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying “I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him,” which would be express malice.”
    http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1197

    The MBH paper was a pioneer work whose results since have been confirmed by multiple studies using other methods. Judge Weisberg’s remarks, quoted above, would therefore seem to be a good description of how the case will unfold:

    “…a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann ‘molested and tortured data’ was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm. …”

  72. #72 dhogaza
    June 24, 2015

    John Mashey:

    ” Discovery would be such fun, which may be why CEI especially wouldn’t want it to happen :-)”

    Why does this make me think that John’s enjoyment of the fun might be close up and personal? 🙂 If so, CEI and others are not going to enjoy the process at all 🙂

  73. #73 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 24, 2015

    “One might ask for lists of attendees at certain meetings….”

    Heh! Fun, yes, but pointless in a libel suit. Emails between the defendants showing malice would be good to have, but it’s not necessary: the prima facie case has already been made.

  74. #74 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 24, 2015

    “So if Mann is considered to be a public figure, then RickA is correct in writing that Mann would have to prove malice….”

    Dr Mann never wanted to be a “public figure,” but in the denialism cult he is— in the sense of their greatest enemy, worse than Hitler and Gandhi combined.

    Steyn’s new book sure looks like malice to me.

    “A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite. 2. Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.”

  75. #75 John Mashey
    June 24, 2015

    Google: defamation malice

    Desertphile 73:
    I never said discovery was needed to win this case, just as it would not have been for mine. In my case, at least 4 sets of people independently and immediately had some interest in discovery on Wegman and Said.
    Do you think anyone might be pleased at that possibility on CEI (and NR)? Can you imagine there might be any emails and documents legitimately findable and made public that might have other uses? 🙂

  76. #76 Michael Wells
    June 24, 2015

    Speaking of the ACLU’s regrettable intervention, does anyone have a link to any kind of official statement from that organization, or to their brief? Googling and even searching on their website has gotten me little other than a bit of gloating from Steyn and the Steynites. It is, for me, easily the most depressing thing about the whole case, as this is one of the few organizations about which I have always unequivocally believed, and still more or less do, “These are the good guys.” Usually I consider them nothing short of heroic, especially in the current American age of pervasive surveillance, imprisonment and assassination without trial and pants-wetting eagerness to shed all our civil liberties. So their stupidity in taking Steyn’s side here is a punch to the gut. I would at least like to read their justification in their own words.

  77. #77 John Mashey
    June 24, 2015

    Michael Wells @ 76
    Sadly, it might not be so clear.

    Try Search for ACLU in Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.

  78. #78 Ricka
    United States
    June 25, 2015

    Michael Wells #76:

    The reason the ACLU and all the other news organizations got involved in this case is because they think it is a first amendment case and wish to protect the first amendment.

    They all believe that Mann’s defamation case, suing an opinion writer for his opinion, is an attack on the first amendment and wish to protect their right to write opinions and not be sued for defamation.

    They are the goods guys and are on the side of the angels in this case.

    After all – if you cannot hold the opinion that a graph which was specifically designed to deceive, in order to hide the decline, is fr*udlent – than what good is the 1st amendment?

  79. #79 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 25, 2015

    RICKA QUOTE: “It is Mann’s burden to prove actual malice, not Steyn’s to show its absence.”

    Been there; done that; got the tee-shirt and the court ruling. The defendants are appealing, still trying to deceive the judge in to believing the issue is one of First Amendment rights, not the libel and defamation issue that it is.

    Dr Mann is too ethical to comment on the case until after he wins the suit, but I wonder what he thinks of this message thread.

    “RickA’s” freaky alternate reality has been and is the topic of professional study among sociologists and psychologists for the past decade or more, and the frightening thing is that they have concluded the rejection of reality is normal, not abnormal— it is a common human behavior. There is a 70% chance, based on “RickA’s” behavior here, that he embraces the “free market fundamentalism / government regulations are evil” falsehood; there is a 30% change he is also a pro-conspiracy believer.

    The facts, meanwhile, show that if a trial in front of a judge were held right this minute, the law suit would prevail and the defendants would be found guilty.

    The current appeal by the defendants merely repeats false assertions that the judge already rejected; the appeals judge is hyper-unlikely to reverse that decision (judges in general avoid reversing the decisions of other judges).

    Looking at the issue dispassionately, without ego involved, and from a financial point of view, I would rush to settle the case if I were the defendants, after apologizing.

  80. #80 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 25, 2015

    “The reason the ACLU and all the other news organizations got involved in this case is because they think it is a first amendment case and wish to protect the first amendment.”

    Yes, the ACLU (among others) falsely believed libel and defamation was not the issue. So what? Harassment and calumny are not protected First Amendment rights. The judge already ruled that malicious intent is likely to be demonstrated; The judge already ruled that the issue is libel, not free speech. I have no idea what it’s like in your alternate reality, but these two facts have already been determined by the judge, and the appeals court is extremely unlikely to reverse the SLAPP argument’s decision.

  81. #81 Marco
    June 25, 2015

    “After all – if you cannot hold the opinion that a graph which was specifically designed to deceive”

    I assume you mean you should be allowed to hold the opinion that a graph was specifically designed to deceive. Note the subtle difference with what you wrote.

  82. #82 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    June 25, 2015

    RickA:

    After all – if you cannot hold the opinion that a graph which was specifically designed to deceive, in order to hide the decline, is fr*udlent – than what good is the 1st amendment?

    That whooshing sound you heard was the sound of the point blasting over your head at Mach 2. You have totally missed the point.
    The issue is not that Steyn holds an opinion, it’s that he made a specific accusation. He specifically claimed that Mann distorted the data. If you don’t see the difference between that and opinion, I can’t help you.

  83. #83 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 25, 2015

    “I assume you mean you should be allowed to hold the opinion that a graph was specifically designed to deceive. Note the subtle difference with what you wrote.”

    It is another fine example of RickA’s alternate reality. He was ordered to believe a falsehood that has been debunked a few hundred times (and he knows it), and he has obeyed. Spooky, that.

  84. #84 John Mashey
    June 25, 2015

    A possible defamation defense can be that the defendant has no credibility and no one believes them. One of the delightful things about the Internet is that people volunteer data that help the plaintiff by repeating the defamatory claims.

    In some sense, i’d hesitate to mention this, as it might discourage thoughtful repeaters… but i’m not sure how many there are. I did think the lawyers should have had a chance to collect evidence … but i suspect they got more ghsn enough within a few days 🙂

  85. #85 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 25, 2015

    “He specifically claimed that Mann distorted the data.”

    Indeed, and that is a claim Steyn knows to be false. It was not stated “as an opinion.”

  86. #86 RickA
    United States
    June 25, 2015

    Simberg said Mann “has molested and tortured data.” Steyn said he might not have the same comparison but that “Mr. Simberg does [have] a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph.”

    So he didn’t say “distort” – but he did repeat “molested and tortured the data”.

    Now to me that sounds like an opinion – because it is so vague. Which data did he molest and torture? How did he molest and torture the data? It is like calling somebody a scoundrel or shifty.

    But even if it is found to be a factual assertion – truth is a defense in a defamation case.

    So the question is did Mann molest and torture the data?

    Now of course reasonable minds can disagree on the truth. But isn’t it true that Mann ran his PCA in a non-standard manner (decentering the data)? Isn’t it true that some people disagree with the number of principal components he used? Isn’t it true he ran the R2 statistic then chose not to publish it? Isn’t it true Mann ran an experiment in which he took out the Greybill tree records, saw it didn’t produce a hockeystick and then chose not to publish that result (the data was found in a directory called CENSORED). Isn’t it true that Mann claims on his CV to be the author of the WMO iconic cover version of the hockeystick (the one which didn’t clearly state that temperature data was grafted onto the proxy record)?

    I could go on and on.

    The point is reasonable people could truthfully say that Mann molested and tortured the data, and cite to many facts which could be argued to support their “truth”.

    It is going to be impossible to show that Steyn didn’t believe what he said when he said it – which is required to show that he knew what he said was false when he said it.

    Pretty tough burden for Mann (in my opinion).

    But we will see.

  87. #87 cosmicomics
    Denmark
    June 25, 2015

    RickA has clearly shown that he doesn’t know what a statement of fact is, and that he’s therefore unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

    1. RickA is a notorious serial killer who has raped, killed and dismembered between 15 and 20 children.
    2. I believe that RickA is a notorious serial killer who has raped, killed and dismembered between 15 and 20 children.
    3. RickA could be the notorious serial killer who has raped, killed and dismembered between 15 and 20 children.

    Unless I have proof, the first sentence is libel. It is an unqualified assertion. The “vague” number of children doesn’t change that. The following two sentences are not libelous, because I’ve protected myself with the phrases “I believe” and “could be” The sentences RickA cites express facts, not opinions. “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph,” is stated as a fact, and contains nothing that would identify it as an opinion. The same holds for the assertion, Mann “has molested and tortured data.” Again, if Steyn had written “It’s my opinion that, or “the apparently fraudulent hockey-stick,” he would not be in the trouble he’s in.

    As things stand, Steyn’s only defense would seem to be providing proof that the hockey-stick graph is fraudulent and that Mann “molested and tortured data.” Unfortunately for Steyn, ensuing research has confirmed MBH and reproduced the hockey-stick.

    As for RickA’s “hide the decline” and his attempt to resuscitate climategate:

  88. #88 RickA
    United States
    June 25, 2015

    For information on the legal distinction between fact and opinion (in the district of columbia – where this suit is located) please read here:

    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges

    Here is an excerpt:

    In general, facts are statements that can be proven true or false; by contrast, opinions are matters of belief or ideas that cannot be proven one way or the other. For example, “Chris is a thief” can be proven false by showing that throughout his entire life Chris never stole anything. Compare that statement with “Chris is a complete moron.” The latter is an opinion (or, technically, “a pure opinion”), as what constitutes a moron is a subjective view that varies with the person: one person’s moron is not necessarily the next person’s moron. Put another way, there would be no way to prove that Chris is not a moron. If a statement is a “pure opinion,” it cannot be the basis for a defamation claim.

    All three of cosmicomics hypos are susceptible to being proven true or false.

    It is a tricky business – the distinction between fact or opinion.

    Not to mention that the decision is in the hands of 9 or 12 (depends on the jurisdiction) people off the street (the jury). No matter how sure you are of your case there is a chance you will lose – just based on the jury.

    In my opinion, Steyn rendered his opinion – which is true – and without actual malice.

    But we will see how the case turns out.

    I don’t believe Steyn will settle – no matter how bad Mann wants the case to settle.

  89. #89 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 25, 2015

    “In my opinion, Steyn rendered his opinion – which is true – and without actual malice.”

    That is yet another fine example of “RickA’s” spooky alternate reality.

  90. #90 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 25, 2015

    “As for RickA’s “hide the decline” and his attempt to resuscitate climategate:

    Heeh! Funny way to hide something—- publishing it in the world-revered much-read science journal Nature. The “decline” is still a mystery among dendoclimatologists, and part of active research (Alexander Stine’s research for example, has perhaps explained the “decline” in his paper “Arctic tree rings as recorders of variations in light availability” published in the May 7 issue of Nature Communications.)

    The “decline” is thought to be due to global dimming. At the moment the “decline” is still “declining,” though Earth’s atmosphere is getting cleaner. The “decline” will eventually once again match thermometer records if Stine’s hypothesis is correct (and if the atmosphere continues to brighten).

  91. #91 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 25, 2015

    “Unfortunately for Steyn, ensuing research has confirmed MBH and reproduced the hockey-stick.

    …. before Steyn libeled Dr Mann, please note: Steyn already knew MBH did not falsify any data, before Steyn stated as fact that Dr Mann had done so.

  92. #92 Michael Wells
    June 25, 2015

    John Mashey at #77: Thanks for the link. You’d think I’d have learned by now not to put anyone on a pedestal as heroes.

    Even so, while I can’t claim to have read up on the situation in great detail, I would tentatively say that their stance on tobacco advertising and related issues is at least arguable by reasonable and well-intentioned people, as well as consistent with their stated mission and their history. Their taking tobacco money seems ill-advised to say the least, but I can’t see any strong evidence of an actual quid pro quo. Again, that’s tentative.

    Interestingly, this exchange (from sometime in the ’90s, apparently) with a critic of their tobacco industry donations coincidentally throws a little light on the current topic:

    http://niemanreports.org/articles/tobacco-and-the-american-civil-liberties-union/

    Then ACLU head Ira Glasser says, apropos of another matter entirely, “the ACLU opposes the very notion of libel suits as an available remedy for false speech.” This seems, frankly, bizarre to me, but if true, they’re at least being consistent in their stance on the Mann/Steyn suit.

    They remain one of the most vital American organizations, both currently and historically, but thanks for the reminder that feet of clay are a widely used implement.

  93. #93 John Mashey
    June 26, 2015

    Michael Wells @92
    The business model of cigarette companies is to addict people during adolescent brain development, which varies, but falls within ~ages 12-24 fro most people. Nicotine is able to “rewire” brain receptors during that part of brain development.
    See Data from Surgeon General, my graph, from this blog post.

    The cigarette companies certainly knew their business depended on addicting teenagers to something that would cause many slow, miserable deaths. RJR’s infamous “The Importance of Younger Adults” very likley led to one of the most successful (and deadliest) marketing campaigns in US history: Joe Camel.

    https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=qfxj0094
    https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=stxb0087
    etc.

  94. #94 cosmicomics
    Denmark
    June 26, 2015

    If RickA #88 is correct in stating, “All three of cosmicomics hypos are susceptible to being proven true or false,” and that all three can therefore be judged as facts rather than opinions, then he cannot in good faith maintain that Steyn’s unqualified statements can be interpreted as opinions. He can’t have it both ways.

    As I wrote before:

    “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph,” is stated as a fact, and contains nothing that would identify it as an opinion. The same holds for the assertion, Mann “has molested and tortured data.” #87

    Instead of acknowledging this, RickA twists and turns to get the result he wants:

    “Now to me that sounds like an opinion – because it is so vague. Which data did he molest and torture? How did he molest and torture the data? It is like calling somebody a scoundrel or shifty.” #86

    “Which data did he molest and torture?”
    This would be demonstrable.
    “How did he molest and torture the data?”
    This too would be demonstrable.

    RickA’s contortion is the equivalent of claiming that my first, manifestly libelous statement is an opinion because not stating how and where the children were killed makes it vague.

    That the statement, “the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph,” provides the necessary context for determining “which data,” is conveniently ignored. Likewise, the assertion that the hockey-stick graph is fraudulent, is not an opinion, but something Steyn would have to prove. Ultimately, his defense would not just be against Mann, but against all the scientists that have reached similar results.

    http://environmentalforest.blogspot.dk/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-hockey-stick

  95. #95 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 26, 2015

    “Then ACLU head Ira Glasser says, apropos of another matter entirely, “the ACLU opposes the very notion of libel suits as an available remedy for false speech.””

    He means lying is protected free speech. Funny how the ACLU did not see the difference between lying, and libel.

  96. #96 Mal Adapted
    June 26, 2015

    RickA:

    In my opinion, Steyn rendered his opinion – which is true – and without actual malice.

    Well, scientists judge the truth of research findings based on expert knowledge of the subject. Trained scientists who aren’t themselves sufficiently expert in a narrow topic of research are likely to defer to the judgement of their colleagues who are. Non-specialists evaluate the expertise of specialists by the specialists’ publication record, and on their own scientific meta-literacy.

    For any member of the public who possesses a modicum of scientific meta-literacy, expert opinion would be good enough. Steyn’s opinion, though, was that Mann’s findings were not just incorrect but fraudulent. Even if Steyn’s opinion were sincere, he had no reliable evidence to support it. Sure, it’s possible Steyn is right (hey, pigs might fly), but science deals with probabilities, and if I were a betting man I’d offer long odds in Mann’s favor. Why would Steyn accuse Mann of fraud unless his intent was to poison the well against Mann, and all of climate science by association? Malice is self-evident.

    RickA:

    But we will see how the case turns out.

    I’m not an expert on libel law, which is why we have courts. IMHO, though, if Mann’s libel suit does go to court, it will hinge on whether or not he is a public figure. Mann’s scientific findings aren’t the issue, and their truth won’t help Steyn regardless.

  97. #97 RickA
    United States
    June 26, 2015

    cosmicomics #94:

    I am merely trying to apply the bit of law which I directed you to, to the facts of this case.

    Are you sure you could demonstrate that Mann did or did not molest and torture data?

    Might there not be an element of subjectivity present?

    What does molest and torture data even mean?

    If I average a set of values instead of using the median have I molested and tortured data?

    I am merely pointing out that (and again this is just my opinion) that one persons “molest and torture data” might not be same as someone else’s – like the example I provided of calling a person a moron – which is considered subjective.

    But I did concede that a court could potentially find that Steyn’s statements are not opinion.

    I then moved on to determine whether a reasonable person could believe them to be true.

    Mal Adapted #96:

    “Malice is self-evident”. Well that assertion won’t meet Mann’s burden of proof.

    Why would Steyn accuse Mann of fraud? He didn’t. He accused Mann of being the man behind the fraudulent hockey stick graph.

    My guess is he accused Mann of this because he believes it to be true. Why might be believe the graph to be fraudulent? A reasonable person could see the graph as designed for propaganda, to deceive, and to be used to advocate for a particular policy outcome (to lower carbon emissions). Some might call it fraudulent for that alone. Never mind the actual minutia that were involved in producing its various versions – which give a lot more weight to an opinion that it is fraudulent.

    But like I said – we will see how the case turns out.

    I do agree with you that one very very important element of the case is that Mann is a public figure (in my opinion) and therefore has the burden of showing Steyn acted with actual malice.

  98. #98 Mal Adapted
    June 26, 2015

    RickA:

    A reasonable person could see the graph as designed for propaganda, to deceive, and to be used to advocate for a particular policy outcome (to lower carbon emissions).

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    The expert consensus is that Mann’s original hockey-stick graph is essentially correct even if his statistical methods were sub-optimal. Subsequent research has replicated the hockey-stick shape using multiple paleoclimatic metrics. On the basis of scientific literacy and meta-literacy, a reasonable person would see Mann’s graph as a legitimate research product. Lacking either basis, wouldn’t a reasonable person at least reconsider whether he’s really as well-informed on this topic as you think you are, RickA?

  99. #99 John Mashey
    June 26, 2015

    Mal:
    The first judge ruled Mann to be a public figure, at least in climate, back in 2013. I don’t think any good lawyer would have expected otherwise. i really wish the law used a different phrase than “actual malice”, say like Bob Newhart’s gazorninplat, so that people wouldn’t confuse it with the
    colloquial meaning. Hence, “reckless disregard” is the most relevant issue.
    Who is Steyn going to call? Steve McIntyre? Ed Wegman? Good luck.

  100. #100 Paul Rubino
    U.S.
    June 26, 2015

    Thank you for telling me about this book, i just purchased two copies. Much appreciated! 🙂

  101. #101 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 26, 2015

    “Are you sure you could demonstrate that Mann did or did not molest and torture data?”

    See what I mean by “alternate reality?”

  102. #102 Greg Laden
    June 26, 2015

    Paul, you didn’t purchase them, you pre-ordered them.

  103. […] Greg Laden post: Mark Steyn’s Newest Attack On Michael Mann And The Hockey Stick [link] […]

  104. #104 Paul Rubino
    U.S.
    June 26, 2015

    You are correct. 🙂

  105. […] Greg Laden post: Mark Steyn’s Newest Attack On Michael Mann And The Hockey Stick [link] […]

  106. #106 Mal Adapted
    June 27, 2015

    John Mashey:

    The first judge ruled Mann to be a public figure, at least in climate, back in 2013… Hence, “reckless disregard” is the most relevant issue.
    Thanks John, I know you’ve paid a lot more attention to this than I have. Steyn’s accusation of fraud surely demonstrates “reckless disregard for the truth” in the colloquial meaning, since he had no credible evidence for it and his financial and political motives are obvious. For that matter, Steyn’s brand of AGW-denial ought to be prima-facie evidence of a reckless disregard for the truth.

  107. #107 Vaguely Interested
    Kansas
    June 27, 2015

    Not a lot of people know that National Review was sued for defamation by two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling (Chemistry and Peace Prizes), and NR prevailed. Wm F Buckley called Pauling a “fellow traveler”, which was well-understood to mean a communist-leaning person. Pauling had previously sued a few small newspapers for this, and won or gotten cash settlements.

    However his NR suit followed in the wake of NYT v. Sullivan (which changed First Amendment law for the press.), and he lost at trial and appeal. Pauling never filed another defamation suit.

    Not a lot of people know that Dr. Mann’s counsel, John B. Williams, previously represented R. J. Reynolds in its “Joe Camel” ad campaign, against an FTC action, under First Amendment-protection claims for commercial advertising.

    Williams also successfully represented Mobil Oil in a false-advertising action.

    Mann chose a winning track-record attorney.

    It nevertheless seems ironic that our champion for the environment, selected a lawyer well-known for previously representing Big Tobacco, and Big Oil. It gives me a bit of cognitive dissonance. To wit, why didn’t Dr. Mann hire somebody who had previously battled Big Tobacco and/or Big Oil? Oh well, we live in strange times.

    My personal opinion is that 15-20 years ago, NR, CEI and Mark Steyn would have prevailed, easily, but that was a time when freedom of speech and press were at their zenith. Today, things are different. Even Berkeley, which launched the Free Speech Movement in 1964, now promotes quietude on controversial matters.

    Steyn et al.’s only hope is that 20-something Friend of the Court briefs, filed by conservative and liberal media and legal organizations, compared to 0 FotC briefs for Dr. Mann, may persuade the DC Court of Appeals to uphold freedom of the press, over the interests of one lone professor whose counsel failed to enlist a single outside supporter to aid his cause in the courtroom. Greenpeace, WWF, FOE, NRDC, Sierra Club, Where were ya when we needed you?

  108. #108 dean
    June 27, 2015

    “now promotes quietude on controversial matters.”

    Wow, you are delusional.

  109. #109 Vaguely Interested
    Kansas
    June 27, 2015

    Greg,

    I am grateful that you allow to be posted a diversity of views.

    I don’t know if you understand the scientific method. I think I do, but anyone is free to disagree. I abandoned a career in professional science, by choice. At age 5-6 I was collecting insects, amphibia and reptiles. My mom was flummoxed when a moth I had brought home, put in a mayo jar with a perforated lid, to allow breathing, at age 5, allowed her eggs-cum caterpillars to explore our kitchen. By age 9 I was doing microscopy, age 10 telescoppy, age 11 chemistry.

    I worked in electron microscopy at age 19, nucleic acid radioisotope chemistry at age 21, and became one of the world’s top radioimmunoassay chemists at age 23 (Thank You Rosalyn Yalow!), at which age I was invited to present a lecture at a scientific meeting. Then I was a pioneer in protein engineering at age 23-24.

    I’m not impressed with Dr. Mann. Despite living in Amherst, MA, with loads of opportunities to take AP Calc, Physics, and Chem, as well as concurrent enrollment at Amherst and UM-Amherst, which would have propelled a genius to graduate at age 16, then complete a bachelor’s at age 19, and then earned a PhD at age 22-23, Dr. Mann didn’t earn his bachelor’s until age 23, then his PhD until age 32. 5 yrs plus 9 years, with no high school-graduation acceleration, despite a clear path to obtain it (which most of us didn’t have) does not = genius. It does not even = impressively intelligent. Thus intelligent people should be impressed by what he says. I hate to burst some people’s bubbles, Greg, maybe even your own, but somebody who’s father was a Penn-PhD U Mass Mathematics Professor’s son. should have been acceleratable, easily, to a hs graduation at age 17, with enough AP credits to enter Berkeley with first-year courses credited, then even with a double major (applied math and physics), graduated in 4 years, then earning a PhD in 4-5 years, ergo, 1991-92. 1998–after being enrolled straight-through, not impressive.

    Then MBH98, this required statistical analysis. Was a statistician invited to coauthor? We don’t need no stoning statistiican to perform or help us with statistical analysis, we can handle this ourselves.

    On the Greybill/Sheep’s Mountain bristlecone pine ring analysis, one problem is rain/snowfall is a key ingredient to pine growth. Another factor is, bristlecone pines exist in diverse locations, including eastern Nevada, Utah and new Mexico, whose rings were not examined. Not to mention >1000 year old Sequoias, Western Cedars and other trees from Alaska to California. There is a difference between trying to find all the treeing evidence, to establish a record for NH climate, and trying to promote a political agenda. Real science is apolitical. When the UNFCCC unscientist leaders said, “Find evidence that promotes our cause, scientists, real scientists, said, “We can’t do that.”

  110. #110 Obstreperous Applesauce
    June 27, 2015

    “Yes, that’s what I think, and I’m super smart so it’s probably true.”
    Sheldon Cooper, the Big Bang Theory, Season 5, Episode 16 (The Vacation Solution)

  111. #111 John Mashey
    June 27, 2015

    IUOUI = Ignore Unsupported Opinions by Unidentifiable Individuals …
    Anonymity lets people spout nonsense without effect on real-world reputation, which is why sensible people ignore them.
    Anyone actually interested in paleoclimatology and dendrochronlogy, Ray Bradley’s Paleoclimatology, Third Edition: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary or the 2nd Ed (the one that Wegman/Said plagiarized / falsified.)

    Also, one might try Google Scholar search of MK Hughes to see if he might ever have published anything on tree rings.

    Hmm, anybody ever heard those names before?
    Ahh, Mann, Bradley and Hughes…

  112. #112 Erik C.
    IL
    June 27, 2015

    Regarding Mark Steyn’s lawsuit with Micheal Mann:

    “…even if Steyn loses the lawsuit, the rubes might well buy enough copies of the book to cover any eventual legal bills and judgment. Second, Steyn will look like a hero to the rubes no matter what, as long as he never lets on that he might be a teensy bit in the wrong. Third, you never know, some jury might be stupid enough to buy the defense. And finally, a jury might let Steyn off the hook out of pity, inferring that he doesn’t have the intelligence to be considered culpable for his actions.”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_06/misfit_of_science056301.php#disqus_thread

  113. #113 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 28, 2015

    “… Ray Bradley’s Paleoclimatology, Third Edition: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary or the 2nd Ed….”

    He hid the decline also.

  114. #114 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 28, 2015

    “And finally, a jury might let Steyn off the hook out of pity, inferring that he doesn’t have the intelligence to be considered culpable for his actions.”

    If the case ever gets to a jury, there is a chance the jury will believe the false claim that Dr Mann et al falsified data. I suppose that is what Steyn is gambling on….. once he stops the delaying tactics.

  115. #115 Vaguely Interested
    Kansas
    June 28, 2015

    Desertphile

    You easy olde bastadre. My dad was a classmate of Edward Abbey atUNM and buds. I was born at Presby. We moved out, and I spent some time living on the Aransas Wildlife Refuge.

    What was my coolest life experience? TNTC. But living on an outs islet in Fiji in 1982 is up there, waay up there. Pristine coral reefs, kraits, a school of great barracuda attracted by your shiny belt buckle, the whole school swimming around you, within touching distance, giving the Melanesian island family a 100-pound Tridacna to feast on, and being treated royally (palm covered palapa, mosquito screen around your bed, you getting invited to the men’s kava ritual (women chewed up and expectorated the root) deep in the night, you can’t beat that.

    Let’s get back to Mann v. Steyn. The greater probability is that Mann v. National Review and Competitive Institute will be dismissed by the DC Court of Appeals, under DC Anti-SLAPP.

    This will leave Mark Steyn and counsel to either move for dismissal in DC Superior Court, as being covered under nR, CEI’s ruling or ignore the appellate court ruling, and demand trial.

    Mark Steyn really wants this trial, not to win with a jury, but to force Michael Mann to undergo discovery, and cross examination in an open court.

    If the DC Court of Appeals finds that NR and CEI’s appeal is meritorious and DC’s Anti-SLAPP statute applies to Mann v. NR and CEI, so that dismissal is ordered, then the ruling would seemingly apply effectively to Mann v. Steyn.

    Except, technically it doesn’t. Steyn’s counsel could move for dismissal, but they could say, We want to go to trial.

    The reality is Steyn wants Mann to go down. Which is going to happen, one way or the other.

    Mann will be forced to admit:

    I should have recruited a PhD statistician in 1998 who was familiar with principle component analysis, and not tried to do advanced statistics on my own, in which I was not an expert. I went to Berkeley which had a world-renowned statistics department, but I din’t get a Berkeley Statistics Degree.

    I was a struggling 8th year graduate student at Yale and I was approached by Parties X and Y to generate an exponential temperature rise study to “prove” catastrophic global warming. Of course it was ludicrous, to create an unprecedented hyperbolic/ exponential curve, but that’s what they wanted.

    It is true that the Greybill tree-ring studies did not include Great Basin National Forest bristlecone pine growth rings,or any of the other hundreds of bristlecone pine sites in California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona or New Mexico. Not to mention other >1000 year old trees, such as redwoods, western cedars, douglas firs, and others.

    Finally, we did show that higher temps = better tree growth. Our studies in no way demonstrate that higher temps are bad for the biosphere.

    That’s what Dr. Mann may eventually say.

  116. #116 dhogaza
    June 28, 2015

    VI:

    “I was a struggling 8th year graduate student at Yale and I was approached by Parties X and Y to generate an exponential temperature rise study to “prove” catastrophic global warming…”

    And they complain when we point out that they’re conspiracy nuts.

  117. #117 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 28, 2015
    “I was a struggling 8th year graduate student at Yale and I was approached by Parties X and Y to generate an exponential temperature rise study to ‘prove’ catastrophic global warming…”

    And they complain when we point out that they’re conspiracy nuts.

    Yes, indeed. And Shania Twain keep harassing and stalking me, try to0 have sex with me. I’ve had to file a restraining order, but she still stalks me. She also wants me to create a study to prove global cooling.

  118. #118 Vaguely Interested
    Kansas
    June 28, 2015

    You guys slay me. Sumthin happened. Ask Greg about grad school. Mann’s big paper, published before he had a PhD, didn’t have a Yale supervising RA coauthor. Supposedly done as a “postdoc” BEFORE he had a PhD. Weird science.

    I’m not the one who did PCA without a PhD statistician collaborator, and not just PCA, but a “special” variant not used by statisticians. I’m not the one who cherry-picked data that left out data that didn’t show a 20th century exponential temp rise, not to mention paleoclimate proxy data that showed a “temperature drop” after 1960 (“hide the decline”).

    Correction: Great Basin National Park, not Forest. You should go there, I’ve been there twice, hiking up to 11,000 feet. Stunning place, camping in the high desert zone and climbing into the alpine forest in one day. Also great caves. Not as huge chambers as Carlsbad, which DP, you should go to, awesome. Then go night diving in San Diego during the squid mating season, and during the phosphorescent plankton season, the latter turn of your light an watch your buddy create light swirls. Also free-dive (w/o tank) down to 50 feet in the Sea of Cortez. It’s wild. Also try camping out in the Sierra Nevada and defending your ice chest against a black bear. You could let it win, but you’d have to drive 3 hours and back to resupply. So, who’s got the cajones?

  119. #119 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 28, 2015


    “So, who’s got the cajones?”

    Howdy Vaguely Interested. Please pardon me for not replying to your message: a cowboy’s work is never done, and I have spent most of the day hoeing pinto beans in the brutal New Mexico sun. I will write a longer reply later.

    Yes, Dr Mann contributed to MBH98, as the chief researcher, for his thesis. You are also correct about his at the time less than optimum PCA. Please note that in year 1998 the methodologies MBH used were cutting edge, top notch, and the best statisticians had developed at the time. PCA has improved since then, 16 years later, and Dr Mann has said several times that if MB&H were to do the paper again they would use a different centering and slightly different methodologies.

    Please also note that several statisticians have duplicated the work MB&H have done and are doing, and they have all concluded, without exception, that MBH98 and MBH99 had have have nothing significantly wrong. There are now more than 20 independent “hockey sticks,” from independent scientists using multiple methodologies: they confirmed the principal results of the original “hockey stick.” The warming trend and temperatures over the past four decades are unprecedented over at least the last 1,000 years.

  120. #120 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 28, 2015


    “… over at least the last 1,000 years.”

    I beg my pardon. I should have written “… over the previous 1,000 years.” I suspect there may be more 1,000 year periods in the future, so the previous 1,000 years are not likely to be the last 1,000 years.

  121. #121 Jim Spriggs
    Signal Hill, CA
    June 28, 2015

    What’s the matter with Vaguely Interested in Kansas.
    Dr. Mann won’t have to say any of those things. Steyn is milking this stalking of Mann for all its worth. He even comes out with this silly book of quotes to generate more money. When it comes to it, there will be a settlement out of court. By the way, when is this trial scheduled? (checks watch) It’s sure been a long time we’ve been waiting.

    Finally, we did show that higher temps = better tree growth. Our studies in no way demonstrate that higher temps are bad for the biosphere.

    Why would Mann say something that to even the most uninformed observer of climatology would know is totally untrue? That’s more like something Mark Steyn would say. Have you read his blog? I have. He’s a colorful writer but has not a clue about climate science.

  122. #122 Jim Spriggs
    June 28, 2015

    Here’s a link to Seeing the Environmental Forest where climatologist Jim Milks generated a list of 36 studies that corroborate the findings depicted in Mann’s HS. Using different methodologies, proxies, etc., they all came up with the same HS:

    One of the persistent denier myths is that the Hockey Stick (usually meaning Mann et al. 1999) has been discredited. Not only is that myth false but Mann et al. (1999) has been validated through the publication of numerous hockey stick graphs since 1999. Here is a brief list of the ones I know:
    http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html

  123. #123 dhogaza
    June 29, 2015

    VI:

    “You guys slay me. Sumthin happened.”

    Yes, he switched departments in grad school, and lost some time when he did. So what?

    I’m glad you enjoy the outdoors. I’m sorry you think that makes you special. It’s rather silly, given that it’s pretty typical for us westerners. Oh, and BTW, I lost count of the number of black bears I’ve dealt with 25 years ago.

  124. #124 dhogaza
    June 29, 2015

    “Yes, he switched departments in grad school, and lost some time when he did. So what?” I should say, from his CV, it appears that …

  125. #125 RickA
    United States
    June 29, 2015

    Several of the posters here seem to blame Steyn for the delay caused by the appeal of the denial of dismissal.

    While Steyn’s co-defendants are the ones that caused the appeal – Steyn did not participate.

    Therefore, Steyn is not the cause of any delay.

    I will concede that the appeal is taking way to long – and it is hard to fathom a rule which doesn’t make it clear whether a denial is appealable right away or not – what were they thinking?

  126. #126 John Mashey
    June 29, 2015

    Jim Spriggs @121,122 Thanks for pointer to useful list!
    a) Some people would think that some of those plots seriously disagree … but it is often clear that they do not understand error bars.

    b) Some people have sworn eternal allegiance to Lamb(1965), as in MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages, but there are many more, each one either deliberately deceptive or totally ignorant. That psot shows the area covered by the graph. Hint: Not the Northern Hemisphere.

  127. #127 John Mashey
    June 29, 2015

    Desertphil @119
    A couple corrections:
    1) “Dr Mann contributed to MBH98, as the chief researcher, for his thesis.”
    He certainly was the lead author, but “chief researcher” might be misleading. He was a postdoc at UMAss, and Bradley and Hughes are rather more senior.

    His dissertation at Yale was “A STUDY OF OCEAN-ATMOSPHERE INTERACTION AND LOW-FREQUENCY VARIABILITY OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM”. under Barry Saltzman. Dates can be confusing, because sometimes the official date of the dissertation is well after its defense, and the student has actually moved elsewhere, and is finishing writing. (I did that, for example).

    2) It is well worth reading The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars regarding PCA centering differences. While centered is the default, people do uncentered and hybrid versions, and if they take care to keep enough PCs for a given variance, they get the same final results, well within error bars. See HSCW p.167:
    “Asked about the effect of PCA centering conventions Von Storch replied “the effect is very minor … it really doesn’t matter here.”
    Read Chapter 9 for explanation. McIntyre did it wrong, even before considering the PR-oriented 1:100 cherry-pick.

    PCA is just used to reduce the number of variables, and there is no magic “one right way”, as can be seen by endless arguments in statistics journals.

    The early 2000s saw a great deal of experimentation with different methods. Mann and others had already switched to RegEM, which they considered better than straight PCA.
    See this paper.

    See p.137 where Mann writes:
    “given the fodder our less traditional modern centering convention has provided for climate change deniers, I wish we’d used the long-term centering from the start. It doesn’t make any difference which convention you use; you get the same final answer in the procedure as long as you do the analysis correctly.”

  128. #128 GKP
    Ontario
    June 29, 2015

    Interesting that no one commenting appears aware that the M98 paper showing the hockey stick came out during what turned out to be the first year of the 18yr pause in global warming. Indeed, the hockey stick since has bent back to horizontal. If you wanted to shoot a puck with it, you would have to flip it over upside down.

    One of the mistakes or frauds if it was deliberate in the M98 paper is use of the Tiljander lake sediment proxy from a Finnish lake which was plotted upside down. It was even stated by the Finnish collector of the original data that it was contaminated and not recommended for use as a temperature poxy. I know there has been a lot of damage control by noted CAGW proponents which I’m sure will be trotted out to refute it. That the series was not fit for purpose in the first place might be harder to refute.

    [You don’t know what you are talking about. There has been no reversal or flattening of the blade of the hockey stick. You’ve got the reverse proxy story wrong. The original ’98 paper has been supported and verified again and again. See this and references therein: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/

    -gtl]

  129. #129 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 30, 2015

    Thank you for correcting my misunderstandings, re Dr Mann before he was Dr. 🙂 I have read his book, and his “PCA Made Easy” chapters. Perhaps I misunderstood Dr Mann’s own statement regarding the centering used in MBH99, but if I recall correctly he said he now would not have “done it” that way.

    As was pointed out above, the major criticism (which is false) about MBH98 and MBH99 is that they contained too few PCs. Increasing the number makes the signal go away, therefore Earth isn’t warming sharply. That still makes me laugh.

  130. #130 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 30, 2015


    “Interesting that no one commenting appears aware that the M98 paper showing the hockey stick came out during what turned out to be the first year of the 18yr pause in global warming.”

    Yeah, uh… as soon as global warming pauses, do tell someone, m’kay? Thanks.

  131. #131 Christopher Winter
    June 30, 2015

    Mike Mangan: The only reason you need to oppose any “solution” to CAGW is the vile nature of it’s [sic] proponents. Alarmists are the new American Taliban.

    Yes we are. I myself beheaded Mike Mangan just last night. You won’t be hearing from him again.

    (This is a [sic] joke…)

  132. #132 Christopher Winter
    June 30, 2015

    GKP: Interesting that no one commenting appears aware that the M98 paper showing the hockey stick came out during what turned out to be the first year of the 18yr pause in global warming. Indeed, the hockey stick since has bent back to horizontal. If you wanted to shoot a puck with it, you would have to flip it over upside down.

    It’s more than interesting — it’s downright remarkable that a paper published in 1998 failed to record such a significant trend of the subsequent 18 years.

    One of the mistakes or frauds if it was deliberate in the M98 paper is use of the Tiljander lake sediment proxy from a Finnish lake which was plotted upside down.

    Yet more remarkable is the contention that anyone would plot a Finnish lake upside down. Bada-boom! (“Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend…”)

    Excuse me — I need another cuppa to get my seriousness quotient up to par.

  133. #133 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 30, 2015


    Mike Mangan: The only reason you need to oppose any “solution” to CAGW is the vile nature of it’s [sic] proponents. Alarmists are the new American Taliban.

    Yes we are. I myself beheaded Mike Mangan just last night. You won’t be hearing from him again.

    (This is a [sic] joke…)

    Mee too! I keel four…. maybe five… . Amerikan Kapitalists today! Al Gore akbar!

  134. #134 Marco
    June 30, 2015

    “One of the mistakes or frauds if it was deliberate in the M98 paper is use of the Tiljander lake sediment proxy from a Finnish lake which was plotted upside down.”

    Amazing that this tiljander lake sediment proxy, not available until 2003, was used in a paper published in 1998…

  135. #135 John Mashey
    June 30, 2015

    Desertphile:
    i suggest rereading p.137, around where i quoted in #127. You recall the one statement correctly .. But the issue is the context.

    Consider 2 interepretations of
    “I wish we’d used the long-term centering from the start.”
    That could be:
    1) I wish that because it was mathematically wrong and distorted the reconstruction and McIntyre was right.
    OR
    2) The method was not wrong, did not affect the final results in any significant way, but it gave people an excuse to generate confusion, I wish we’d done it that way, just to avoid the nonsense.

    Now, 1) is false and 2) is true, not only from p.137, but for other reasons.

  136. #136 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 30, 2015


    “Amazing that this tiljander lake sediment proxy, not available until 2003, was used in a paper published in 1998…”

    That’s part of the conspiracy!

  137. #137 Vaguelu Interested
    Kansas
    June 30, 2015

    DP, do you realize you are concatenating Latin and Greek? It looks like you didn’t study classical languages.

    Nuthin wrong with hoeing pinto beans in the heat. I loaded lettuce trucks at 107 F. Brain went a bit woozy.

    I’ve actually had some interesting severe temp experiences. Living in the Mojave, which being high desert was normally not disabling hot–without A/C just wear wet t-shirts–but we had a spell of a week of 118-123 F. You definitely hunkered down.

    We had a three day power outage in Oregon, due to an ice storm, and being in the rural low-repair-priority list. Temps down to -3 F. Got into the REI down sleeping bags, ran the wood stove, got through it fine. It was an adventure.

    We stayed in Colorado, min temp -33F, never got to 0 for a week. We didn’t lose power our heat. Going skiing required multi layers.

    We’ve had temps to -18 F and up to 118 F here in Kansas. One time I went running for a half-mile a -13 F, shirtless, and biking layered up, with OR Alti-Mitts, balaclava and ski goggles at -4 F.

    Here’s my take-home lesson: Cali has the best climate, but not enough water for its current population. Look I lived In San Diego where Colorado River piped in water was so chlorinated it was like drinking from the swimming pool. Everybody who could afford it subscribed to Arrowhead to get San Benardino Mtn 5 gallon water bottles.

    But was diving for OMG-delish abalone and spiney lobsters there worth it? And board and body surfing, especially in the Gulf of Alaska winter storm waves, the Baja hurricane waves, and the New Zealand (summer for us, winter for them) waves?

    Did I have a blast bodysurfing with dolphins in SD, being 10 feet from a baby gray whale (my parner wanted to pet it, I said, “Momma may not lie it, let’s watch and not touch,”) and then, bodysurfing with southern fur seals in NZ, learning afterwards it was a white-ponter shark hangout (GW shark), then boogie-boarding in Kauai–all the board surfers were a mile away–in cafe au lait water. Perfect waves. I had them all to myself. Then I learned,
    That’s tiger shark hunting ground.”

    Better lucky than good, eh?

    I’m not concerned about global warming. I’ve lived in New Zealand, Hawaii, Boston, Houston, really a lot more places. I’m okay with Kansas, as long as we have fossil-fuel winter heating and summer A/C. If I have to live without, rainfall becomes key.

    Lots of good places. Volcano, HI is cool enough to grow apples, 60+ in of annual rainfall. Lava from Kilauea could be a problem.

    If things get too warm, Northern Canada and the higher elevations of the Cascades have water and lots of room for migrants.

  138. #138 dhogaza
    June 30, 2015

    VI:

    ” I loaded lettuce trucks at 107 F. Brain went a bit woozy.”

    And it shows …

  139. #139 Vaguely Interested
    Kansas
    July 1, 2015

    dh

    You’re darned tootin. Of course it could have been the THC, suckedi in too much of that. As have a lot of Greg’s readership.

    Before that I was a National Merit scholarship Finalist. Anyway, my Berkeley GPA (sans pot) blew away Michael Mann’s. (Yes, I had to work my a** off, smart students got B’s with minimal study, but A’s required planning and execution. Learn how to listen to profs, and “read” when they are saying stuff they think is important, go to office hours to clarify things, every professor every week–not end of term to plead, but starting second week of class, have fun talking with them. Following the profs’ “language” I took outline-structure notes.

    Then I penciled in margin extras right after class, or as soon as possible. I “listened to the prof’s voice”, and wrote down what he said that I hadn’t wiitten during the lecture.

    Then I wrote new study notes that night integrating all the margin notes into a cohesive document.

    Then I spent each weekend reviewing the previous week’s notes.

    When midterms and finals came up, I studied until 10 PM and got a good night’s sleep. I threw away 2 AM cramming.

    Lot’s of you never learned sound study. Nobody ever taught you. In high school, I crammed for exams, bumping up mid-quarter B’s to final A’s, and getting the benefit of an upward end-performance. Bad learning system. Not useful for retaining information long-term.

    Who here hasn’t short-term-memory-ability-testing, crammed, and then quickly forgotten what he/she regurgitated for the test? Sad.

    Who here consistently studied 25 hours/week, from Week 1 to Week 10 or Week 15 in college? Those of you who didn’t were losers in the high-stakes education game.

    Are you ready to move if the climate where you live gets too hot or too cold? We are all immigrants. If the earth enters a new Little Ice Age,are you ready to move to the Subtropics or Tropics? If it warms to beyond Medieval Warm Period, are you able to migrate polarity or into the higher mountains? If climate changes significantly, but you can’t move, the government isn’t going to rescue you with wind-energy subsidies or down-insulated-clothes subsidies..

    Somebody once called a “Nomad”. He hit the nail on the head.

  140. #140 dean
    July 1, 2015

    Know what VI? I don’t believe a word of your personal history. But, on the off chance it’s true, what is the relevance to Greg’s topic?

  141. #141 dhogaza
    July 1, 2015

    dean:

    ” But, on the off chance it’s true, what is the relevance to Greg’s topic?”

    Narcissism doesn’t require relevance.

    But I don’t doubt he had to work as hard as he says to get good grades. Yawn. I didn’t.

  142. #142 Doug
    July 2, 2015

    “…are you able to migrate polarity…”

    Isn’t this only relevant in cellular motion?

  143. #143 Christopher Winter
    July 2, 2015

    Here’s a thought, Vaguely: Why don’t you post the tale of your exploits on your own site? Then you can link to it as needed and forego these long comments.

  144. #144 Jim Spriggs
    Signal Hill, CA
    July 3, 2015

    #126
    John,
    Thanks for the reminder about that Lamb graph, one of the tools in the denier “the LIA was warmer” toolbox.

  145. #145 John Mashey
    July 3, 2015

    Jim: i think you meant “the MWP was warner” 🙂
    Of course, via Mikankovitch it likely should have been wsrmer, but it wasn’t, bit that medieval temperature matters to the future, except for better model calibration.

  146. #146 Brian Dodge
    July 3, 2015

    http://www.defamationremovallaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-civil-conspiracy/
    “What is Civil Conspiracy?
    Civil conspiracy is a tort that occurs when two or more persons conspire to do an unlawful act and injury is caused to another from the commission of that act. A conspiracy is two or more persons agreeing to a plan to cause a particular result to occur. Conspiracy is not a cause of action alone, but it is a theory that imposes liability on defendants who share with the other conspirators a common plan or design in its commission. By participation in a civil conspiracy, a co-conspirator adopts, as his or her own the actions of other co-conspirators. In this way, a co-conspirator is liable with the other conspirators.”

    It seems clear to me that CEI and NR have “adopted” Steyn’s libel as their own; I wonder if the courts would find that people pre-ordering a book expecting more of the same from Steyn are tortuously adopting themselves into conspiring for future libellous acts of Steyn? If Steyn collects enough money up front, lawyers will be crawling out of the pro bono woodwork for a shot at that payday.

  147. #147 John Mashey
    July 4, 2015

    Brian:
    1) i think book-buying is a real stretch for conspiracy, although the various comments showing belief in Steyn’s claims likely help establish reputational damage …

    2) But as for conspiracy, there is plenty of already-public evidence at least for CEI.

  148. #148 Spooky That
    USA
    July 23, 2015

    Desertphile –

    As far as alternate reality’s go, just look in the mirror pal …

    lol

  149. #149 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    July 24, 2015

    “As far as alternate reality’s go, just look in the mirror pal …”

    I blame my father.

  150. #150 Mike B
    July 25, 2015

    Context? They said what they said. One said they should be barred, one said they got it all wrong, one said the hockey stick is bunk. They’re all PhD’s. One isn’t a climate scientist? Pachiuri, the former head of the IPCC isn’t a climate scientist, but a railroad engineer. And last I looked, neither was Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein, etc. Many eminent climate scientists, Lindzen, Happer, Heinz Hug, Jesper Kirkby, Henrik Svensmark think the climate change group are all frauds. Hanson is not a climate scientist, yet he’s the most quoted. And regarding the lawsuit, about 10 amicus briefs were filed supporting Steyn, zero were filed supporting Mann. He’s toast in that case, and as Steyn has countersued, Mann is in big trouble, as his motion to dismiss was denied.

  151. #151 Michael Croy
    Minnesota
    August 8, 2015

    I love all of the preening the author of this blog and his commenter section are doing. Especially delicious are the claims, made left and right, that Mark Steyn is doing something nefarious, and trying to make money or gain advantage somehow. No, he’s having to defend himself, for simply writing some articles in the press, which is his profession. Michael Mann makes a habit out of bullying critics and forcing them to defend themselves in what amount to frivolous lawsuits. He most often has no intention of taking the case in question far enough to even get a ruling. Just far enough to financially strap his critic, and put fear into anyone else who thinks of criticizing him. One of the commenters here is quite enthusiastic about this strategy: “Mann is quite happy indeed by having Steyn exhaust his funds. :-)” With a smiley face no less. But of course, you’re just reasonable, “science” oriented folk who would gladly promote both the right to free speech and open debate, right? Right. You folks really scare me. Truly.

  152. #152 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 9, 2015


    “[….] Especially delicious are the claims, made left and right, that Mark Steyn is doing something nefarious….”

    Is it your contention that people should be allowed to maliciously defame, libel, and slander with impunity?

  153. #153 Marco
    August 9, 2015

    “He most often has no intention of taking the case in question far enough to even get a ruling.”

    Mindreading much? Or can you show which cases Mann has not pursued into a ruling? I know of none. I do know that Tim Ball dropped a lawsuit when he had to admit that several statements he had challenged as libel were, well, actually true. Or perhaps you are thinking of Christopher Monckton, who has threatened to sue or report people/organizations to police many times, and in most cases ‘only’ writes angry letters with those threats, and then doesn’t do anything.
    There’s a list here, which may well be incomplete:
    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
    (see the section “Threatening Those Who Disagree With Him”)

  154. #154 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 9, 2015


    “[….] I do know that Tim Ball dropped a lawsuit when he had to admit that several statements he had challenged as libel were, well, actually true. [….]”

    Speaking of Tim Ball, did you see the video of him pretending he is in hiding, fearing for his life, because climatologists (THE ELITE LIBERAL ESTABLISHMENT / WORLD ORDER) want to kill him? He insisted that he be filmed in silhouette, apparently in the The Great Global Warming Swindle” prank video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTJQPyTVtNA

    Ball shows up at time stamp eight minutes. He is reported as “hiding for his life” in remote Canada.

  155. #155 Mal Adapted
    August 9, 2015

    Michael Croy:

    But of course, you’re just reasonable, “science” oriented folk who would gladly promote both the right to free speech and open debate, right? Right. You folks really scare me. Truly.

    You’re protected by the same laws we are, Mr. Croy. You have precisely the same rights to “free speech and open debate” we do. In the US, with very few exceptions you can’t be jailed for what you say, and no one can extract money from you or make you shut you up for saying anything short of actionable libel.

    Of course, if you don’t know where the line between protected and actionable speech is, it’s no-one’s problem but your own. And your free speech rights aren’t violated when you get your ass handed to you on a blog, right? Right.

  156. #156 astrodog
    August 10, 2015

    The second you start suing your critics is the moment you lose all credibility. Climate science is a now a trillion dollar industry. Money does what it always does.

  157. #157 Brainstorms
    August 10, 2015

    Right-o. Best to stick to suing assholes who defame you instead.

    Oh wait… You can tell the difference, can’t you?

  158. #158 Fred
    August 11, 2015

    Let’s just get this to trial. The good doctor is chomping at the bit to get his day in court, yes? Why is this taking so long?

  159. #159 Marco
    August 11, 2015

    So, astrodog, what you are saying is that Fred Singer lost his credibility looooooong ago, when he brought a SLAPP suit to Justin Lancaster? Same for Tim Ball, who sued Dan Johnson.

    Right?

  160. #160 Marco
    August 11, 2015

    Fred, it is taking long primarily because NR and CEI continuously appeal against court decisions to proceed.

  161. #161 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 11, 2015


    “Fred, it is taking long primarily because [National Review] and CEI continuously appeal against court decisions to proceed.”

    Dr. Mann will not comment on the tort until after it concludes, which is a shame because I suspect he would like to. Judging only by the public documents available, filed by defendants and the judges, the defendants know they will be found guilty—- which is why they are delaying.

    In tort litigation, being found guilty is not the end of the issue. There are a hell of a lot of ways the defendants can avoid and evade restitution.

  162. #162 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 11, 2015


    “The second you start suing your critics is the moment you lose all credibility.”

    What did you hope to accomplish by changing the subject? The subject is Dr. Mann’s tort litigation against malicious and injurious acts against him. If you are concerned about people “suing their critics,” complain about Ball’s behavior when he did it.

  163. […] that some are promoting a despicable book about Michael Mann (you can read Greg Laden or Sou’s posts if you want some context) I thought I might post this recent Bill Maher […]

  164. #164 Laws of Nature
    August 13, 2015

    Hello there,

    I would like to contrast two citations on some proxies in Finnland:
    http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/
    “Matti Saarnisto: In that article [Science], my group’s research material from Korttajärvi, near Jyväskylä, was used in such a way that the Medieval Warm Period was shown as a mirror image. The graph was flipped upside-down. In this email I received yesterday from one of the authors of the article, my good friend Professor Ray Bradley …says there was a large group of researchers who had been handling an extremely large amount of research material, and at some point it happened that this graph was turned upside-down. But then this happened yet another time in Science, and now I doubt if it can be a mistake anymore. But how it is possible that this type of material is repeatedly published in these top science journals? There is a small circle going round and around, relatively few people are reviewing each other’s papers, and that is in my opinion the worrying aspect.”
    vs
    http://boards.fool.com/manns-use-of-tiljander-data-upside-down-28033799.aspx
    “The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre.
    Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”

    I actually dont know which is more worrysome, that Mann seems to fail to be willing to correct his mistake or the claim that his algorithm would use data with the wrong sign to increase the certainty of a trend..

    Last not least I would recommend that you should look up the statements about the censored directory (which seems directly relevant to the Mann-Steyn lawsuit):
    For a skeptical opinion look chapter 5 here:
    http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-retrospective.pdf
    These are two examples where the facts seems to strongly disagree with Mann’s versions.

  165. #165 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 13, 2015


    “I would like to contrast two citations on some proxies in Finnland….”

    Then why didn’t you? Why quote a petroleum industry “adviser” and two “free market” cultists?

  166. #166 Laws of Nature
    August 13, 2015

    that would be a classic ad hominem, right?

    However, I am not sure what you trying to say here, maybe my citation was not clear enough..

    the first cite was from Matti Saarnisto, a finish geology professor, who’s team produced the proxies in question
    the 2nd quote is from M. Mann
    and the last is an article by McKitrick

    Could you elaborate, who are the cultist and who belongs to the petroleum industry? (And probably support your allegations with some links? You wouldnt like to libel someone working in the climate business, would you?)
    I could point out, that Mann wasn’t too fine to hire himself Williams with ties to the tobacco industry http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/07/23/michael-mann-lawyers-up-with-tobacco-lawyers-represented-by-experienced-defamation-lawyer-john-b-williams-who-successfully-represented-rj-reynolds-tobacco-company/

    In any case, maybe you would like to comment in the citations claiming that Mann distorts the facts?
    (And if he would do so knowingly, as McKitrick’s article seems to imply, that would be fraud, at least in the scientific meaning of that word)
    If Matti Saarnisto’s claim that his proxies were used incorrectly is true and Mann knows about it (how can he not, he commented about it), he must issue a correction to each paper using these proxies or withdraw them, just commenting on it is not enough in my opinion and each day he does not shows a drastic misunderstanding of scientific work, that also includes his supporters! Mistakes or fraud (if it was done knowingly) cannot be tolerated in science!

  167. #167 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 13, 2015


    “However, I am not sure what you trying to say here, maybe my citation was not clear enough.”

    Er.. ah…. ou claimed you were going to produce two citations regarding Finnish proxies. You then cited a petroleum industry Public Relations agency, and two “free market” lunatics.

    Do you even know what a proper citation is? Are you just…. oh, I don’t know…. a moron, maybe?

    If I produce a quote from someone who said you told them you owe me US$666, is that good enough for you to give to me US$666? Or are you really not as stupid as you are pretending to be? If you are really that stupid, don’t give me US$666— I don’t take advantage of the mentally slow.

  168. #168 Laws of Nature
    August 13, 2015

    Hmm, somehow you dont make any sense, well you calling me a moron is clear enough, but let’s have a good look..

    The citations are there (okay Mann’s cite is not properly marked, but we all knew that one, didn’t we)?
    So is your beef, that the citations are not “proper”? I included the links go there, have a look it is not that hard.

    Or are you claiming that Saarnisto, Mann or McKitrick did not say what is cited by me?

    About that money business.. do you have such a citation?
    I dont think so, but if you have I would say: Sue me!

    All your ad hominem only shows, that you have nothing material to say!

    Again, “Could you elaborate, who are the cultist and who belongs to the petroleum industry?”
    Saarnisto, Mann or McKitrick
    I call BS on that statement, I dont think you can provide a source for that! That would make you a liar btw!
    You should be careful calling names, our short exchange already seem to show, your reading/understanding issues.

  169. #169 Thomas Fuller
    Taipei
    August 13, 2015

    Well, I haven’t read Steyn’s book, but if Mr. Laden doesn’t like the first three quotes, here are some that should be included:

    Tom Wigley: I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held for some time.”

    Malcolm Hughes” “I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature.”

    Ed Cook: “I have growing doubts about the validity and use of error estimates that are being applied to reconstructions.”

  170. #170 Laws of Nature
    August 13, 2015

    Well to be honest, I like my citations far better, because these mud slinging does not get us anywhere
    That includes the latest comments by Desertphile here as well as your citations..
    I believe the citations from me show accountable evidence that there is a disagreement between Saarnisto and Mann about the finish proxies (with Mann being wrong and inactive about them.. he just keeps incorrect facts in his publications) and McKitirck’s statement which seems to indicate to me, that Mann knowingly left contradictory information (about the robustness of the results on the dependence on one particular proxi) out of his 98 publication, which would be scientific fraud.

    I claim that is a different class of citations and might much more helpful leading towards a reasonable debate about the Mann vs Steyn case.

    Let me ask a hypothetical question: If Mann did run tests about the robustness if his results prior to his 98 publication and suppressed critical information disqualifying his results, would that qualify as scientific fraud? (I think the answer to this question is very clear, but lets hear it)

  171. #171 Obstreperous Applesauce
    August 14, 2015

    Try citing properly peer reviewed literature — you know, in the context of a scientifically coherent, verifiable model of how climate actually works.

    Otherwise, you can quote mine this, that and the other until the cows come home, and there will still be nothing to distinguish it from opining rooted in rhetorical phantoms.

    In other words, you are being ridiculed because you are being willfully obtuse, not because you have any kind of relevant argument.

  172. #172 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 14, 2015


    “You should be careful calling names, our short exchange already seem to show, your reading/understanding issues.”

    Heh! You should be careful claiming to cite science instead of citing professional liars who are claiming to cite science.

    Someone told me you said you owe me US$666. Pay up.

  173. #173 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 14, 2015

    “… that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven.”

    No scientist, anywhere, at any time, has ever said it has been proven.

    In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature.

    No scientist, anywhere, at any time, has ever said there is.

    Sheeeish.

  174. #174 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 14, 2015

    “Well to be honest, I like my citations far better, because these mud slinging does not get us anywhere.

    Well, to be honest, you cited third-party opinions about first-party conclusions, then tried to sell them as genuine. Where’s my US$666 you said you owe me?

    “Let me ask a hypothetical question”

    Why?

  175. #175 Brian Dodge
    North by God we don't believed in sea level rise Carolina
    August 14, 2015

    Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia; PAGES 2k Consortium –
    Moinuddin Ahmed, Kevin J. Anchukaitis, Asfawossen Asrat, Hemant P. Borgaonkar, Martina Braida, Brendan M. Buckley, Ulf Büntgen, Brian M. Chase, Duncan A. Christie, Edward R. Cook, Mark A. J.

    Curran, Henry F. Diaz, Jan Esper, Ze-Xin Fan, Narayan P. Gaire, Quansheng Ge, Joëlle Gergis, J Fidel González-Rouco, Hugues Goosse, Stefan W. Grab, Nicholas Graham, Rochelle Graham, Martin

    Grosjean, Sami T. Hanhijärvi, Darrell S. Kaufman, Thorsten Kiefer, Katsuhiko Kimura, Atte A. Korhola, Paul J. Krusic, Antonio Lara, Anne-Marie Lézine, Fredrik C. Ljungqvist, Andrew M. Lorrey, Jürg

    Luterbacher, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Danny McCarroll, Joseph R. McConnell, Nicholas P. McKay, Mariano S. Morales, Andrew D. Moy, Robert Mulvaney, Ignacio A. Mundo, Takeshi Nakatsuka, David J.

    Nash, Raphael Neukom, Sharon E. Nicholson, Hans Oerter, Jonathan G. Palmer, Steven J. Phipps, Maria R. Prieto, Andres Rivera, Masaki Sano, Mirko Severi, Timothy M. Shanahan, Xuemei Shao, Feng

    Shi, Michael Sigl, Jason E. Smerdon, Olga N. Solomina, Eric J. Steig, Barbara Stenni, Meloth Thamban, Valerie Trouet, Chris S.M. Turney, Mohammed Umer, Tas van Ommen, Dirk Verschuren, Andre E.

    Viau, Ricardo Villalba, Bo M. Vinther, Lucien von Gunten, Sebastian Wagner, Eugene R. Wahl, Heinz Wanner, Johannes P. Werner, James W.C. White, Koh Yasue & Eduardo Zorita

    “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between

    ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North

    America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than

    any other time in nearly 1,400 years.” – http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html#group-1

    What mistake should Mann correct? If he got the same answer(within 2 std deviation, as shown on the graphs in MBH99) as every paleoreconstruction done since then, was he wrong, or just not as accurate? Did he cherry pick data like McIntye & Mckitrick had to do to show that if they “tortured and molested” enough red noise “random” data that they “could… given the right kind of random numbers” generate a hockey stick one time in a hundred?

    Even fellow skeptics gave it up 5 years ago –
    “One of the things that’s annoyed Dr. Schmidt (see his Collide-a-scape ‘guest post’ The Main Hindrance to Dialogue (and Detente)) and other AGW Consensus advocates has been my contention that

    the Tiljander proxies likely provide a substantial contribution to the “hockey stick” shape of the paleotemperature reconstructions in the Mann group’s 2008 PNAS paper, “Proxy-based reconstructions of

    hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia … But one point shines through:

    The Tiljander proxies are represented in gray, at the bottom of the graph (the legend reads “Sediment Finland”).
    Throughout the time series, they contribute less than 5% to the reconstruction. Other proxies contribute the other 95%-plus portion of the signal. So if Jeff is right — he probably is —

    I was wrong.” – http://amac1.blogspot.com/2010/07/tiljander-proxies-modest-effects-on.html (BTW, Jeff Id’s analysis to which he refers was done in 2008 – you “skeptics” are a little slow on the uptake)

    Of course, if “sceptics” kept up with the science instead of wasting time on denialist polemics at WUWT, Curry’s blog, Mcintyre’s “auditing”, they could have read – http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/02/0805721105.DCSupplemental/0805721105SI.pdf and seen that the effect of ” withholding each of the 15 available Northern Hemisphere screened proxy records available back to the early 9th century as indicated” makes insignificant differences in temperature reconstruction.

    Your not even flogging a dead horse; you are just flinging putrid long dead arguments from the decaying pile of denialist propaganda.

  176. #176 Laws of Nature
    August 15, 2015

    Hi there,
    thank you for trying to bring so reason to this blog.. it seemed a little insane so far, like it is run by the cultist Desertphile mentioned or so..
    However, I am afraid your question is answered easy enough..
    Sometimes I despair a little bit about the tardiness this debates progress.. but as long as these debates “ar going on” the climate scientist sit at the meat pots, which sheds some light on other “contributions” in this blog
    >>What mistake should Mann correct?
    As an honest scientist any he has published, which would be in the current discussion the possible omission of a contradictory analysis in 98 and the incorrect use of the finnish proxis.
    The later one is clearly spelled out in the link YOU provided:
    http://amac1.blogspot.com/2010/07/tiljander-proxies-modest-effects-on.html
    ” Other proxies are much more important. The other points that have been raised about the TIljander proxies remain.
    These include their uncalibratability to the instrumental record, and thus their faux calibration by Mann08’s authors. They also include the use of XRD and lightsum in an orientation that is inverted, with respect to the orientation proposed in Tiljander03. Do these other points still matter? Obviously, it depends on your definition of that word. I think the answer is clearly “yes,” for a number of issues.”

    “In my opinion, analysis of Mann08′s use of the Tiljander proxies shows that this recent, high-profile paper clearly fails the “robustness” claim.”

  177. #177 Marco
    August 15, 2015

    LoN: There is no one who stops this “amac” from publishing his analysis in the scientific literature. This is how science works. Why would this amac be the final authority on the supposed problem with the proxies and methods Mann used?
    Note that this amac in his point accepts that his prior claims on the large impact of the Finnish proxies was wrong.

    What a lot of people also forget is that M08 points out the proxy (or at least some part of it) as potentially problematic.

    The supposed “contradictory analysis” in MBH98 is, IIRC, a question of whether R2 is a good measure for the long-term comparability of the proxies. Apparent people disagree about this matter.

    I myself have analyses on my computer that would ‘contradict’ stuff that I have published, but which was wrong or upon later inspection just not an appropriate way of dealing with the data (although others may disagree). Should I have published this anyway?
    I have also improved on my prior papers, stuff we scientists do all the time. I don’t expect people to then keep on complaining about my older papers containing something we now know to be “suboptimal”. This is what happens if you work on really novel stuff, things people never did before.

  178. #178 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 15, 2015

    <blockquote"thank you for trying to bring so reason to this blog"

    Yeah, er, you should give it a try too.

  179. #179 Brian Dodge
    North by God we don't believed in sea level rise Carolina
    August 15, 2015

    Interesting that you should quote AMac “These include their uncalibratability to the instrumental record, and thus their faux calibration by Mann08’s authors.” which is either a deliberate lie or conclusive demonstration the he is too mathematically impaired to make competent assessments of the science.
    If one measures A and B, and finds that A = j*B (calibration); and then measures B versus C, and finds that B = k*C (again, calibration), you now know that A = j*k*C, without having to compare A (e.g. instrumental temperature) with C (Tiljander proxies); it’s not fake, but indirect calibration. Is AMac stupid, or deliberately sophistricating the debate by accusing Mann of “faux” calibration of the data?
    Another thing that’s wrong with the criticism of MBH99 is failure to understand “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors”, but perhaps I can help. lets look at our indirect calibration example as the basis for a thought experiment. We have data A – Gistemp, HasCRUt, -the instrumental record. We have data B – speleothems, coral isotopes, foraminifera, tree rings, whatever, provided by a whole bunch of other scientists who collected the data and published it in the peer reviewed literature. And we think we have C – lake sediment layer XRD, carbon/mineral ratios, annual layer thickness, provided by Tiljander, Saarnisto et al, but we have inadvertantly inverted the sign of this data (Damn Windows98 &;>); let’s call this data -C. We do the math, creating direct and indirect calibration; A = j*B; B = m*-C (calibration isn’t j, because we’re not using C), and A = j*m*C. We publish this data, along with statistical analysis of significance (PCA, which we choose noncentered because the data is assymetrically distributed) . Steve McIntyre comes along later and decides to “audit” the paper, but doesn’t invert C(thank God for Mac OSX &’>). He gets B = j*C (ooh, different calibration! Did Mann fake it?) but being mathematically gifted, he notices that j = -m, which cancels the inadvertant change in sign of -C, and A = j*m*-C = j*k*C, and the papers conclusions are valid.

    Or not.
    Because he thinks he knows, and truly believes that the MWP was warmer, and he sees a bump in the Tiljander data, he assumes that it represents a bump in (global) temperature because of his cognitive bias. He skips over the parts of Tiljander where they show that the primary driver of annual changes in sedimentology of a small lake in a modest drainage in south central Finland is the amount of spring snowmelt, which is somewhat correlated with the NAO (proxies), and might be because warmer winters accumulate less snow and have less runoff. It might be because drier winters locally resulted in less snowpack, or it might be because colder winters deposited dryer, less dense snowpack – locally. Try convincing McIntyre of that.
    I will note in passing that the Anasazi civilization collapsed from drought around that time, as did the mound builder culture centered around Cahokia, Illinois. I don’t think that a “MWP” warmer than today which cause a collapse of cultures growing corn in the USA is a very good argument for global warming being good for agriculture and global food security.

  180. #180 Laws of Nature
    August 15, 2015

    First set of equations:
    A = j*B; B = m*-C (calibration isn’t j, because we’re not using C), and A = j*m*C
    there seems to be a minus in front of the last C missing

    Second set of equations:
    B = j*C not sure where this comes from, wasnt j used to create a relation between A and B? Is it a different j?
    I guess you trying to say, that the temperature A can be correlated to an assumed upward trend in the Tiljander data using a positive m or a downward trend using the same m but multiplying it with -1:
    A=j*m*(-C)=j*(-m)*C
    That would actually be quite worry some.
    For example if all proxies would show a cooling trend, an indiscriminating algorithm would find a correlation with the assumed warming and thus use “real” cooling to verify the warming assumption, just as Mann said and you tried to describe here. Such is no good idea!

    BTW AMac could have meant that a direct calibration of this proxi vs. temperature fails, because the modern part of this proxi is contaminated.

  181. #181 angech
    August 16, 2015

    “[You don’t know what you are talking about. There has been no reversal or flattening of the blade of the hockey stick. You’ve got the reverse proxy story wrong. The original ’98 paper has been supported and verified again and again.
    -gtl]”
    You keep saying this.
    In point of fact very few reconstructions of past temp variations have been run since Mann’s iconic work.
    Those you quote in support of him do happen to be by his fellow collaborators and himself and are reconstructions of the same data, not new work.
    No wonder they all agree.
    The only attempt to do a Southern Hemisphere analysis by Gerghis to support Mann failed miserably.
    “When” the book comes out and all the quotes are freely available I look forward to your dissing the prominent scientists one by one.
    If therer are any in your view.

  182. #182 Marco
    August 16, 2015

    Gergis could not support MBH in any way, exactly because it is Southern Hemisphere, whereas MBH99 is extratropical(!) Northern Hemisphere.

    In the meantime:
    http://www.pages-igbp.org/ini/wg/2k-network/intro

    Of course, all those things about “his collaborators” is just an attempt to muddy the waters by the detractors. Same with “reconstructions of the same data”. Are you one of those who thinks the Yamal data is included in MBH98/99?

  183. #183 Marco
    August 16, 2015

    “For example if all proxies would show a cooling trend, an indiscriminating algorithm would find a correlation with the assumed warming and thus use “real” cooling to verify the warming assumption, just as Mann said and you tried to describe here. ”

    A proxy can only indicate cooling if it is calibrated to the temperature, which thus has to be cooling. It cannot then indicate cooling if the temperature is actually warming.

  184. #184 John Mashey
    August 16, 2015

    Marco: give it up 🙂
    Serious Dunning-Kruger affkictees do not want help.
    Note of course that most of the blade is modern temorrature records, not reconstruction, ie angech didn’t understand the first thing about the graphs.

    Angech obviously doesn’t know the history if reconstructions befiore MBH98, or the near-simultaneous publication of Jones etal (1998), which looked rather like MBH99, but without the error bars and inclusion of modern records.

    I

  185. #185 Laws of Nature
    August 16, 2015

    “A proxy can only indicate cooling if it is calibrated to the temperature, which thus has to be cooling. It cannot then indicate cooling if the temperature is actually warming.”
    Multiple sign errors in language..
    For the proxies in the current discussion
    ” And we think we have C – lake sediment layer XRD, carbon/mineral ratios, annual layer thickness, provided by Tiljander, Saarnisto et al, but we have inadvertantly inverted the sign of this data”
    The dataset showed cooling (potentially not well calibrated, but cooling), while the assumption tested by Mann’s algorithm was warming in that period.
    My comment was about that this method is very worrisome.

    Here is once more Mann’s words about this:
    “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds.”
    So, it seems, that in this publication data showing a cooling trend was “successfully” used to confirm an assumed warming trend.

  186. #186 angech
    August 16, 2015

    “Marco August 16, 2015
    Gergis could not support MBH in any way, exactly because it is Southern Hemisphere, whereas MBH99 is extratropical(!) Northern Hemisphere.”
    Umm, yes it could.
    or do you wish to limit the hockey stick to only half the earth?
    “Of course, all those things about “his collaborators” is just an attempt to muddy the waters by the detractors.”
    No, the supporting papers were reconstructions by Mann, Jones and Briffa with overlapping authors.
    eg Jones et al 1998
    Crowley and Lowery [2000]
    Esper et al [2002]
    Mann and Jones 2003
    Jones and Mann 2004
    Moberg et al 2005
    D’Arrigo et al, 2006
    Osborn and Briffa, 2006. Science.
    “Are you one of those who thinks the Yamal data is included in MBH98/99?”
    “Briffa’s Yamal reconstructions were included in four of the twelve hockey stick reconstructions” Rational Wiki
    Are you intimating the Yamal data was left out?

  187. #187 Marco
    August 16, 2015

    LoN, I can see we are going nowhere. Again, if the proxy shows cooling, it can only do so because the temperature calibration shows it is cooling. It then does not matter whether the proxy is entered into the algorithm switched around, because the algorithm will then switch it back to fit with the calibration.

  188. #188 Marco
    August 16, 2015

    angech, ignoring for a moment John Mashey’s valuable advice and primarily responding for the benefit of others reading this thread (I know I will not be able to convince you of anything that contradicts what you believe to be true).

    The hockeystick, the reconstruction shown in MBH99, was a reconstruction of the extratropical Northern Hemisphere. When a similar reconstruction of the Southern Hemisphere would also show a hockeystick, it would not confirm MBH99. It cannot confirm MBH99. It’s that simple. Of course one would expect a similar shape for the Southern Hemisphere, but that’s a completely different story.

    The papers with similar reconstructions to MBH99, like Jones et al 1998, Crowley & Lowery 2000, Esper et al 2002, D’Arrigo et al 2006, Moberg et al 2005, and Osborn & Briffa 2006 have *no overlapping authors* with MBH99! In four of these papers neither Mann, Jones nor Briffa are co-authors. Attempts by people with an ideological agenda to make it into a small conspiracy of Jones, Mann and Briffa are duly noted.

    I am saying Yamal was not included in MBH99, not that it was left out. There’s at least one rather good reason for that: it wasn’t available at that time…(published in 2000, even McIntyre started to throw some mud at pseudoskeptics for making false claims about Yamal, even though he was the prime source of it, claiming it was “like crack cocaine”).

  189. #189 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 16, 2015


    Those you quote in support of him do happen to be by his fellow collaborators and himself and are reconstructions of the same data, not new work.

    Okay, I give up. Please explain to us how you “know” your claim is true; be sure to explain away all of the reconstructions that are new, independent, and not based on data used in MBH. Thank you in advance.

    http://www.snolab.ca/public/JournalClub/Chris.pdf

    Scientists have not found any problems with the methodologies; only hysterical paranoid denailists are able to see them, and they refuse to show their discoveries to scientists.

    “The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions supporting the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.”

    “At the end of April Science published a reconstruction by J. Oerlemans based on glacier length records from different parts of the world, and found consistent independent evidence for the period from 1600 to 1990 supporting other reconstructions regarding magnitude and timing of global warming.[154] In May the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research advised media about a detailed analysis by Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann, first presented at the American Geophysical Union’s December 2004 meeting in San Francisco, which used their own code to replicate the MBH results, and found the MBH method to be robust even with modifications. Their work contradicted the claims by McIntyre and McKitrick about high 15th century global temperatures and allegations of methodological bias towards a hockey stick outcomes, and they concluded that the criticisms of the hockey stick graph were groundless”

    “Various criticisms of the MBH statistical methods were discussed in the context of more recent research which explored ways of addressing these problems, and showed greater amplitude of temperature variations over 1000 to 2000 years. Recent papers cited included Wahl & Ammann 2006 (in press). On McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism of principal component analysis as tending to bias the shape of the reconstructions, it found that “In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature”, and reconstructions using other methods were qualitatively similar. Some of the criticisms of validation techniques were more valid than others, these issues and the effect on robustness of the choice of proxies contributed to the committee’s view of increased uncertainties. They called for further research into methods and a search for more proxies for earlier periods.

    At the press conference the three NRC panellists said they found no evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as data manipulation, or “anything other than an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure”. Bloomfield as a statistician considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been “quite reasonable” in a “first of its kind study”. He said “I would not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if I’d been involved in it”. In response to a question from Edward Wegman on the MBH use of principal components analysis, Bloomfield said this had been reviewed by the committee along with other statistical issues, and “while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.”

  190. #190 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 16, 2015


    “Gergis could not support MBH in any way, exactly because it is Southern Hemisphere, whereas MBH99 is extratropical(!) Northern Hemisphere.

    Heee. Funny. Unfortunately some media sources refer to MBH98 / MBH99 as “global,” and many deniers also believe they are. Deniers also have a mental deficiency when it comes to local temperature records compared to global, but only when the local trend is cooling, never warming.

  191. #191 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 16, 2015


    For example if all proxies would show a cooling trend, an indiscriminating algorithm would find a correlation with the assumed warming and thus use real cooling to verify the warming assumption, just as Mann said and you tried to describe here.

    A proxy can only indicate cooling if it is calibrated to the temperature, which thus has to be cooling. It cannot then indicate cooling if the temperature is actually warming.

    Indeed, the claim that a cooling trend in the proxy data will show a warming trend makes no sense; several proxy data that show a cooling trend show a cooling trend, not a warming trend. Sheeeish.

    Meanwhile, if MBH98 and MBH99 never existed, the current consensus among the world’s scientists about humans because the cause of the sharp increase in global average temperature would still exist.

  192. #192 RB Perkinson
    the hinterlands
    August 16, 2015

    I love the way these science experts in the comments section bemoan the ignorance of non-scientists, yet pontificate with such gusto on the intricacies of the law. The puffed chests of the ‘ Unco Guid’

  193. #193 Mal Adapted
    August 16, 2015

    It’s astonishing how many of Steyn’s defenders still think his accusation of fraud isn’t libel because it’s true, or at least isn’t malicious because it’s reasonable to think it’s true.

    Since Mann has been exonerated eight times by duly constituted authorities, and the hockey-stick shape of the temperature curve has been repeatedly verified by peer-reviewed research using multiple independent temperature proxies, the only way Steyn’s partisans can sustain their confidence is by supposing that Mann has enlisted the mainstream of climate science, the academic establishment and the government of the US in a vast conspiracy to perpetrate fraud.

    Adherence to such an elaborate fantasy is plainly “conspiratorial ideation”, and is surely “denial” in the specialized vocabulary of Psychology. If they think a judge will decide in Steyn’s favor on that basis, or allow a jury to do so, they’re truly living in a counter-factual world.

    As always, IANAL, but IMHO Steyn’s best chance for acquittal is to claim that no one should take his accusation of fraud seriously because he wasn’t qualified to judge for himself, or because he relied on sources no one would consider credible. Can Steyn, who sells his opinions for a living, afford either outcome? Would Steyn’s dogged defenders be satisfied?

  194. #194 Rattlerjake
    United States
    August 16, 2015

    After reading a boat-load of these comments and the minutia that this author wrote, it’s no wonder that this world is in such peril. It is simply amazing that climate alarmists only accept the “claims” of the supposed science professionals on the left, but ignore the facts presented by science professionals on the fight. Even after hundreds of those science professions mutinied from the left because they were tired of the lies. Even NOAA has changed their tune and admitted that the readings and measurements were “ADJUSTED”!

  195. #195 Rattlerjake
    US
    August 16, 2015

    Correction: that’s “right” not “fight”

  196. #196 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 16, 2015


    “If they think a judge will decide in Steyn’s favor on that basis, or allow a jury to do so, they’re truly living in a counter-factual world.

    Two judges already ruled that malice is “likely” to be demonstrated; the fact that the statement made is not true has already been stipulated. The only issues that remain are the defendants’ delaying tactics, and then restitution.

  197. #197 John Mashey
    United States
    August 16, 2015

    Marco @ 188
    “The hockeystick, the reconstruction shown in MBH99, was a reconstruction of the extratropical Northern Hemisphere.”

    That isn’t quite right, although there is a lot of confusion due to fuzziness of categorization of NH vs NH Extratropical.
    We all know there were far less high-res tropical proxies, and some reconstructions didn’t even try, and labeled themselves extratropical.
    That usually meant 30-90degN (i.e., 50% of the NH, the more variable, although I think I’ve seen 23.5-90degN, 60% of the NH, too).

    Of course, there weren’t a lot of proxies N of 70degN.

    MBH98/99 got as many tropical proxies as they could, and called it NH … and others were definitely extratropical, but there is a fuzzy line, not a sharp distinction.

    Of course, since the tropics vary less than the higher latitudes, reconstructions (like MBH) with more tropical proxies tend to be smoother than ones dominated by higher latitudes. This has caused no end of confusion when people look at spaghetti graphs without studying the papers behind the curves.

    See graphs at HotWhopper post, including a proxy map. Then, I’ve made a handful of comments in that thread, which I won’t repeat here.

    Unfortunately, unlike spaghetti graphs, I have never seen a correpsonding dense display of the geographies of the different reconstructions.

  198. #198 Mal Adapted
    August 16, 2015

    RattlerJake:

    It is simply amazing that climate alarmists only accept the “claims” of the supposed science professionals on the left, but ignore the facts presented by science professionals on the right.

    Just which scientists “on the right” are you talking about? Do you mean Kerry Emanuel, who “almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan”? How about Barry Bickmore, “an active Mormon, and an active Republican”? Or maybe Katharine Hayhoe, who, during her presentations to Christian congregations, fields questions like “How could I care about climate change as a Christian/Conservative/Republican?”

    Even after hundreds of those science professions mutinied from the left because they were tired of the lies.

    Are you perhaps referring to the signers of the Oregon Petition, RJ? The one that the US National Academy of Sciences saw fit to formally repudiate? It was a project of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine in tiny Cave Junction, OR. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for parents concerned about socialism in the public schools; would you be one of those parents, RJ?

    Signatories were “required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science”, but the requirement wasn’t rigorously enforced, because among the signatures are those claiming to be novelist John Grisham, actor Michael J. Fox, TV doctors Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt and Benjamin Pierce, and Geraldine Halliwell AKA Ginger Spice, who signed twice. Said OISM founder Arthur Robinson: “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake.” Uh huh.

  199. #199 Mal Adapted
    August 16, 2015

    Desertphile:

    Two judges already ruled that malice is “likely” to be demonstrated; the fact that the statement made is not true has already been stipulated. The only issues that remain are the defendants’ delaying tactics, and then restitution.

    Last I heard, appeals were still pending. If Steyn’s defenders can imagine the facts are on his side, they can imagine the courts will ultimately agree.

  200. #200 Brian Dodge
    North denial Carolina
    August 17, 2015

    Yes, I omitted a minus sign, and used j instead of k in describing McIntyre’s calibrations – it should have said “He gets B = k*C… he notices that k = -m, which cancels the inadvertant change in sign of -C, and A = j*m*-C = j*k*C…”

    “an assumed upward trend in the Tiljander data”
    “the assumed warming”
    MBH’s methods make no assumption about the sign of the proxies, or the temperature. Instrumentally measured temperatures are used to calibrate overlapping proxies, and whether the trend in the proxy is positively correlated with temperature (e.g. tree ring width) or negatively correlated with temperature (e.g. number of tree rings per cm) is determined by the calibration. Where that proxy overlaps with data for which there is no instrumental record for calibration(e.g. Tiljander sediment data), proxy data already calibrated to temperatures (e.g. tree rings series that span instrumental temperature records, d18O from ice cores, or an ensemble of previously calibrated proxies) is used to determine the response to temperature. Even if you do assume the proxy goes one way, the calibration procedure, doing the math, will determine which way the proxy actually changes; doing statistics will tell you how significant it’s contribution is (about 5% for Tiljander).

    AMac didn’t say calibrating Tiljander against modern instrumental records would fail because the modern portion of Tiljander was contaminated, He said Mann’s (multivariate) method was false.

    Speaking of Tiljander, there is a 2003 paper (unlike denialism, paleoclimatology didn’t stop with MBH98) A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated sediment of Lake Korttaja¨rvi, central Finland; MIA TILJANDER, MATTI SAARNISTO, ANTTI E. K. OJALA AND TIMO SAARINEN; DOI 10.1080/03009480310004152; http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/paleolimnology/Tiljanderetal.pdf
    Figure 9 in this paper show mineralization and organic content of the varves, which show a positive bump possibly associated with the Medieval Climate Anomaly, although it appears to peak around 6-700 AD and declines to a minimum arund 1200 AD. There’s also an increase starting around 1600 and accelerating through 2000.

    The authors state “In the 20th century the Lake Korttajarvi record was strongly affected by human activities. The average varve thickness is 1.2 mm from AD 1900 to 1929, 1.9 mm from AD 1930 to 1962 and 3.5 mm from AD 1963 to 1985.” But this part of the core could still be considered an indirect proxy for temperature; it reflects changes caused by a growing human population, an increasing use of technology including fossil fuels to expand agriculture and clear forests in the lake’s drainage, with the concomitant increase of CO2 emissions driving 20th century warming. Perhaps climatologists a thousand years from now will look at cores from Lake Korttajarvi and say “AGW was obvious; what were they thinking?”

  201. #201 Brian Dodge
    August 17, 2015

    I wonder if the people attacking Mann using Tiljander’s sedimentology from Lake Korttajarvi know that “Korttajarvi” translates as “Straw Lake” which could be construed as a proxy for “straw man”??? Coincidence? I think not.

  202. #202 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 18, 2015


    “Or maybe Katharine Hayhoe, who, during her presentations to Christian congregations, fields questions like ‘How could I care about climate change as a Christian/Conservative/Republican?’”

    One version of Jesus in the Bible has him liberal; the other version of Jesus in the Bible has him conservative. Modern Christians (presumably “followers of Jesus’ teachings) must therefore be as schizophrenic as the two Bible versions.

  203. #203 Stuart
    Australia
    August 20, 2015

    Without being drawn into the fray – legal technicalities having been invented by lawyers, for lawyers – I’d just like to point out the following:

    It appears to me (a layman) that to arrive at the hockey stick graph, Mann has used a narrow set of specialised data which has been collated in a highly questionable way.

    Looking from the outside in, I would say his work isn’t axiomatic. In fact, I would say it’s highly interpretive. The subsequent decades-long debate over its validity would seem to confirm this.

    Interpretive findings should be criticised and questioned in every professional field, and if you ask me Steyn’s article was about as defamatory as a tepid cup of dishwater.

    Mann needs to have a shave, stop posing for trendified nerd glamour shots and toughen up. If you want to be a big boy, occupy the public space and forward your beliefs – whatever they are – be prepared to be questioned, criticised and abused.

    I have a patent dislike of litigious proceedings such as these, solely because it gives the thin-skinned an avenue to avenge hurt feelings. Fragile pride.

  204. #204 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 20, 2015


    “The subsequent decades-long debate over its validity would seem to confirm this.”

    Er, what little debate there is among scientists regarding MBH98 and MBH99 is overwhelmingly inconsequential. The facts, and the graphs, have been checked and duplicated and validated dozens of times, eight times officially. The debate ended years ago. If you still think there is something to debate on the subject, write a paper on it and submit it to a science journal.


    “I have a patent dislike of litigious proceedings such as these….”

    You mean victims are just supposed to roll over, expose their soft under bellies, and submit to persecution?

  205. #205 John Mashey
    August 21, 2015

    Desertphile:

    It does little good to argue with serious Dunning-Kruger afflictees.

  206. #206 Stuart
    Australia
    August 21, 2015

    Sorry mate, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Asserting the graph has been wholeheartedly accepted by the scientific community is being somewhat disingenuous. Nearly 20 years later and its substance is still being questioned, as is the case with most interpretive findings of such import.

    Regarding the lawsuit, I don’t agree that courts should be clogged with such trifling matters, it cheapens the judiciary and in my view shows Mann’s disregard for robust public debate.

    That’s all I have to add, seeing as my Dunning-Kluger’s is flaring up.

  207. #207 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 21, 2015

    Sorry mate, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    I am not your mate, Idiot. And I refuse to agree with falsehoods.

    Asserting the graph has been wholeheartedly accepted by the scientific community is being somewhat disingenuous.

    It is an pobserved fact; among scientists, the debate regarding MBH98 and MBH99 ended almost a decade ago. Among conspiracy alarmists and net.k00ks there is still a “debate,” the whole of which can be summed with the phrase “We obey our cult masters! We cannot think for ourselves! Stop trying to educate us!”

    http://www.snolab.ca/public/JournalClub/Chris.pdf

    Scientists have not found any problems with the methodologies; only hysterical paranoid denailists are able to see them, and they refuse to show their discoveries to scientists.

    “The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions supporting the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.”

    “At the end of April Science published a reconstruction by J. Oerlemans based on glacier length records from different parts of the world, and found consistent independent evidence for the period from 1600 to 1990 supporting other reconstructions regarding magnitude and timing of global warming.[154] In May the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research advised media about a detailed analysis by Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann, first presented at the American Geophysical Union’s December 2004 meeting in San Francisco, which used their own code to replicate the MBH results, and found the MBH method to be robust even with modifications. Their work contradicted the claims by McIntyre and McKitrick about high 15th century global temperatures and allegations of methodological bias towards a hockey stick outcomes, and they concluded that the criticisms of the hockey stick graph were groundless”

    “Various criticisms of the MBH statistical methods were discussed in the context of more recent research which explored ways of addressing these problems, and showed greater amplitude of temperature variations over 1000 to 2000 years. Recent papers cited included Wahl & Ammann 2006 (in press). On McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism of principal component analysis as tending to bias the shape of the reconstructions, it found that “In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature”, and reconstructions using other methods were qualitatively similar. Some of the criticisms of validation techniques were more valid than others, these issues and the effect on robustness of the choice of proxies contributed to the committee’s view of increased uncertainties. They called for further research into methods and a search for more proxies for earlier periods.

    At the press conference the three NRC panellists said they found no evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as data manipulation, or “anything other than an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure”. Bloomfield as a statistician considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been “quite reasonable” in a “first of its kind study”. He said “I would not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if I’d been involved in it”. In response to a question from Edward Wegman on the MBH use of principal components analysis, Bloomfield said this had been reviewed by the committee along with other statistical issues, and “while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.”

  208. #208 Mal Adapted
    August 21, 2015

    Stuart:

    Mann needs to have a shave, stop posing for trendified nerd glamour shots and toughen up.

    So, you don’t think he’s Mann enough 8^D?

  209. #209 Marco
    August 22, 2015

    “Regarding the lawsuit, I don’t agree that courts should be clogged with such trifling matters”

    I sincerely hope Stuart will get in a situation where some media states Stuart is a fraud, that he e.g. makes up his tax returns. Let’s make sure this is also widely proclaimed on the internet. so anyone who googles his name cannot prevent getting a few hits that say Stuart commits fraud.

    Let’s see how Stuart likes that, and how he intends to defend himself against a media that has no intention to correct this. Of course, Stuart will not go to court after he has complained to the media about these false claims, because Stuart thinks such things are just trifling matters.

  210. #210 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 22, 2015


    “Let’s see how Stuart likes that, and how he intends to defend himself against a media that has no intention to correct this. Of course, Stuart will not go to court after he has complained to the media about these false claims, because Stuart thinks such things are just trifling matters.”

    Perhaps in his ideal world victims of harassment, persecution, and abuse just roll over and take it without complaint; you know: the libertarian utopia.

    Which makes me wonder: do deniers of human-caused climate change tend to lack empathy for other humans? Or perhaps not a lack, but a marked and measurable decrease from the norm? It seems to me that question could be studied.

  211. #211 Stuart
    Australia
    August 22, 2015

    Such contempt…

    The correct methodology can be used to reconstruct a face from a skull, doesn’t mean it’ll look anything like the person it belonged to.

    The correct methodology can be used to date a fragment of pot found in a dig, doesn’t mean it wasn’t made a century before, or after, that date.

    The correct methodology was no doubt used by Mann, competently and perhaps without bias, but my point was and still is, interpretive conclusions about subjective data is open to questioning, criticism and debate.

    If Mann and others in his field cannot abide or accept hypothesis or theories that differ to their own, perhaps they should’ve followed a career in a more absolute science.

    And yes, if I was a Nobel prize winning world-famous scientist who’s work was wholeheartedly accepted by peers, I can’t imagine any reason why I’d bother suing a loudmouth (but hilarious) conservative commentator. It says a lot more about his character than Steyn’s. In my humble opinion of course.

  212. #212 Brainstorms
    August 22, 2015

    Stuart, why do you equate accusing someone of fraud with “questioning, criticism and debate”?

    Are you truly unable to make this simple distinction?

    Our are you trying to hide behind a veiled agenda and hoping to sound sensible & sincere? (They’re trying to tell you it ain’t working…)

  213. #213 Marco
    August 22, 2015

    Stuart, it appears you once again just does not get it. It’s not about people questioning or criticizing data and conclusions, it is about a *media organization* and a “think tank” allowing its *staff writers* to accuse someone of deliberate fraud, without noting that various investigations have not found any evidence of such fraud. It is highly irresponsible behavior, because those organizations are opinion *makers*.

    I ask you to consider the situation in which you, you yourself, are openly in a media outlet accused of fraud, despite several investigations having determined you did not commit any fraud. How do you think you are looked at by your neighbours, your colleagues, the people in the shops you frequent? They may well read that media outlet. What do you think they think?
    a) Ah well, it’s just a media outlet that says that, I don’t really know him that well, but I am sure he is not a fraud, because why should I believe what a media outlet says about him?
    b) Oh dear, this guy is accused of fraud by a media outlet. I don’t really know him that well, and this is a media outlet, so I better treat him with suspicion from now on. He is likely a fraud indeed!

    It is rather telling you ignore the other parties in this conflict that Mann has sued. Steyn is just one of three parties. Hilariously, he claims to want to have his day in court, the other two parties (CEI and National Review) are fighting it to the maximum extent.

    Oh, and you are aware that Steyn has countersued?

  214. #214 Mal Adapted
    August 22, 2015

    Stuart:

    If Mann and others in his field cannot abide or accept hypothesis or theories that differ to their own, perhaps they should’ve followed a career in a more absolute science.

    Stuart, you still seem to think this is about science, rather than politics. You are in denial. Whether or not you wish to believe it, there are no scientifically credible “hypotheses or theories” that can make the hockey-stick shape of the Holocene temperature curve go away. There is only the determination of AGW-deniers to discredit the scientific case for AGW by any and all means.

  215. #215 John Mashey
    August 22, 2015

    There are 4 defendants in total.
    CEI was one if the 2 think tanks that coordinated the fraudulent attack on the hockey stick and Mann, going back to 2003 or earlier. CEi’s Myron Ebell had copies of Joe Barton’s intimidation letters to MBH … *before* all the scientists got them, and sent copies yo William Perhach in Bush Whitehouse.
    (Good tactic: make sure your side has advance notice).

    To help calibrate CEI:
    1) It has been one if the bigger think tank recipients of tobacco funding since the early 1990s.
    2) Nicotine has a simple business model :addict people during the only period most are vulnerable, ie adolescent brain development. That varies, but 12-24years covers it, with mist in ages 14-19.
    3) Simply, the nicotine biz model is addict teens, kill slowly.

    I din’t think NR got much $, but they tried. They once begged Jesse Helms for help in getting cigarette advertising.

    Such nice folks, CEI and NR, who are far more important than Steyn and Simberg. CEI, in particular, ought to fear discovery, given the material that was already public years ago on its orchestration of anti-science attacks against Mann and co.

  216. #216 Stuart
    Australia
    August 22, 2015

    You are both right on the difference between the accusation of fraud and objective, rational debate but I would think it’s fairly obvious Steyn is prone to hyperbole and appears to sincerely believe Mann is guilty of covering up sloppy, biased research.
    The public arena is not for the faint hearted and quite rightly too, or we’d all just be different shades of grey. That said, Simberg was completely out of line on all fronts.

    Mann is not doing himself or his cause any good by appearing so happy to litigate over opinions which are pretty tame, especially in such a heated political environment. I mean, the Ball case, really? All he’s doing is drawing attention to the authors and his own possible shortcomings. Of which there appear to be many, depending on who you listen to.

  217. #217 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 22, 2015


    Such contempt….

    Stop earning the contempt of your intellectual superiors, and you will no longer receive it.


    The correct methodology can be used to reconstruct a face from a skull, doesn’t mean it’ll look anything like the person it belonged to.

    Changing the subject doesn’t help your net.k00k reputation.


    The correct methodology can be used to date a fragment of pot found in a dig, doesn’t mean it wasn’t made a century before, or after, that date.

    Changing the subject doesn’t help your net.k00k reputation.


    The correct methodology was no doubt used by Mann, competently and perhaps without bias, but my point was and still is, interpretive conclusions about subjective data is open to questioning, criticism and debate.

    Changing the subject doesn’t help your net.k00k reputation.


    If Mann and others in his field cannot abide or accept hypothesis or theories that differ to their own, perhaps they should’ve followed a career in a more absolute science.

    That is another fine example why no one takes you denialists seriously. Dr. Mann has already accepted, and eagerly asked for and asks for, criticism and input. When he receives it, he thanks the scientists who gave it.

    That fact just pisses the shit out of you denialists. It really stings, eh? Well put some ice on it: the debate about MBH98 and MBH99 among scientists ended almost a decade ago: the opinions from you anti-science conspiracy alarmists is irrelevant.

  218. #218 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 22, 2015


    Stuart, why do you equate accusing someone of fraud with “questioning, criticism and debate?”

    Er, because he and his cult have nothing valid to complain about.

  219. #219 Obstreperous Applesauce
    August 22, 2015

    “…subjective data…”? What does that even mean?

    Which brings us to the postmodernist crux of faulty thinking: rabid, consequence-free b.s. for unapologetically glib and mean-spirited nihilists.

  220. #220 Brainstorms
    August 22, 2015

    Stuart, here’s what you’re tripping over: “litigate over opinions”.

    Accusations of fraud may be legally construed as “opinion” in Australia… However, the context of this accusation of fraud is not Australia, it’s the United States. And here, it’s legally construed as libel, and is open to be “corrected” in court.

    We do not draw pistols at 20 paces in this country (any longer) when professional reputations are damaged in ways like this. Aussie culture may differ, but we use a court of law here.

    This does NOT mean that Mann is “happy to litigate” any more than he’d be happy to draw pistols, etc. Mann is (rightfully) unhappy that his professional reputation has been damaged, and will be happy to have that action properly dealt with — per U.S. laws & customs, not Australian.

    Note: Be careful who you listen to in the future, as your future does depend on it. Whether you’re happy to realize that or not. Nature’s Consequences don’t care about your feelings. Or your political agendas…

  221. #221 Stuart
    Australia
    August 22, 2015

    I would view tree ring data as somewhat subjective. There’s certainly no doubt it has its limitations and in many cases the data has been subjectively interpreted and/or applied.

    That’s all fine guys, but I still don’t think a legal mechanism’s availability makes it use necessary or even ethical.

    If Mann loses this action then there’s no doubt climate science as a whole will suffer a hit in public opinion. That’s a horrible outcome for something started over one man’s pride.

  222. #222 Marco
    August 23, 2015

    “If Mann loses this action then there’s no doubt climate science as a whole will suffer a hit in public opinion. That’s a horrible outcome for something started over one man’s pride.”

    Not too long ago, earlier this year, climate scientist Andrew Weaver won a defamation lawsuit against the National Post, earning him 50,000 dollar (Canadian) and the requirement that the National Post would retract their articles, apologize, and withdraw any consent to third parties to reprint those articles. As the Supreme Court judge noted:
    “The reality is the combination and cumulative effect of these articles is such as to adversely impact on Dr. Weaver’s reputation and integrity as a scientist”.

    I am sure you will now state that this win for Weaver means that climate science as a whole has gotten a boost in public opinion. Right?

  223. #223 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 23, 2015


    That’s a horrible outcome for something started over one man’s pride.


    What does pretending to be a learning-impaired idiot get for you?

  224. #224 Stuart Petrie
    Australia
    August 23, 2015

    Well I don’t think so, for several reasons.

    Weaver’s case wasn’t as high profile as Mann’s (at least where I am), partly due to Steyn’s relentless self promotion and partly because Mann’s name is synonymous with the ‘hockey stick’.

    But even if it were, this case and others like it are not starting from middle ground, otherwise I would agree with you and either outcome would be a huge boon to the winner’s cause. But as it stands Mann is representing doctrines which are already more or less accepted worldwide. A win for him would merely uphold the status quo, reflecting more on Steyn’s character than anything else.

    If Steyn wins, regardless of the legal wording or technicalities involved in the verdict, Mann is a fraud is the eyes of the casual observer. And because his face and work is so entwined in climate science, the entire field will suffer.

    That’s just my opinion of course.

  225. #225 Mal Adapted
    August 23, 2015

    Stuart:

    I would view tree ring data as somewhat subjective. There’s certainly no doubt it has its limitations and in many cases the data has been subjectively interpreted and/or applied.

    That’s hardly an inconvenient truth. All scientific data is interpreted subjectively, which is why Science since the mid-1600s has relied not just on empiricism but on intersubjective verification. You know, “peer review”?

  226. #226 Bernard J.
    August 23, 2015

    Stuart Petrie.

    If not the “hockey stick”, then what?

    Peer reviewed science, please.

  227. […] a novelty tramp stamp: The shaft runs straight across the top of his left thigh and then the blade shoots up his butt.” Yay, Mark! You really know how how to “stick” it to those gay boys! Har, har! If this […]

  228. #228 John Mashey
    August 24, 2015

    On tree-rings:
    1) Some of us buy and study Ray Bradley’s Paleoclimatology text (2nd ed 1999), I have the 3rd also, and read what experts say, also attend AGU and talk to him or Malcolm Hughes and listen to presentations.

    2) Others read blogs, and are thus absolutely certain the scientists know less than they do.

    3) David Dunning will never lack for research subjects, although he already has more than enough from climate blogs.

  229. #229 Dave Johnson
    August 25, 2015

    Steyn wins, you lose. Never has “science” relied on such manufactured bullsh*t as has the global warming / climate change hoax. A power grab for world government like no other!

    ps – I’m still waiting for that water in the streets of our coastal cities like Al promised me.

  230. #230 Bernard J.
    August 26, 2015

    Dave Johnson.

    Congratulations – I counted five (5) logical fallacies in your four-sentence post (others might be able to score more…).

    It takes a true sort of talent to collect so many fallacies so quickly, ‘though not of the educated, informed sort of talent…

  231. #231 Mal Adapted
    August 26, 2015

    Dave Johnson:

    ps – I’m still waiting for that water in the streets of our coastal cities like Al promised me.

    LOL! And he’s fat, too! Do you suppose Dave thinks Al is a scientist?

    Greg, I’m wondering if you’ve attracted a clever poe artist, because lately some of the comments look like parodies of AGW-denial. But assuming Dave Johson is an actual, un-ironic and potentially litigious person, the following is only my opinion:

    Dave Johnson is another dweller in the denier-verse with a crowd of communitarian monsters under his bed. His world-view is wholly informed by fear for his “economic liberty”. He knows AGW is a hoax because, unlike the space-time continuum the rest of us live in, the denier-verse places no constraints on how much stuff he can have. Science should support him, by dog, and if scientists find evidence that liberty confers responsibility, then those scientists have obviously sold out to “world government”. Other people, and all of life, are there just to give him what he wants and absorb as much of the cost as he can externalize. Out of sight, out of mind! That’s why he scans the Internet ceaselessly for any news or opinion that threatens to internalize his externalities, and leaps to defend his blissful ignorance.

    Ah, democracy: vox populi, vox dei! Dave Johnson speaks with the voice of the people as much as anyone does. Thence, the doom of the world.

  232. #232 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 26, 2015


    ps – I’m still waiting for that water in the streets of our coastal cities like Al promised me.

    Al? Who is “Al?”

    Meanwhile, almost one dozen major cities now has water in their streets due to human-caused climate change, and many dozens more small towns, villages, and islands now have water in their streets due to human-caused climate change. This was predicted to happen more than 60 years ago.

  233. #233 dean
    August 26, 2015

    Do you suppose Dave thinks Al is a scientist?

    It is interesting that the only people who bring Gore into these discussions are the people who don’t understand or flat out deny the science, and their references always paint things as though he is viewed by the science community as a type of overlord or guru.

  234. #234 Steven Sullivan
    August 26, 2015

    “If Mann loses this action then there’s no doubt climate science as a whole will suffer a hit in public opinion. That’s a horrible outcome for something started over one man’s pride.”

    You’re hilarious, Stuart. As the average punter couldn’t give a fig about Mann or Steyn, and the pro-Steyn verdict will be a mere blip within one news cycle in the mainstream press, who, exactly, is going to do the hard work of trying to make sure
    that ‘climate science as a whole’ suffers a hit in public opinions?

    Why, it’ll be the denier echo chamber, of course.

  235. #235 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 26, 2015


    It is interesting that the only people who bring Gore into these discussions are the people who don’t understand or flat out deny the science, and their references always paint things as though he is viewed by the science community as a type of overlord or guru.

    Conspiracy alarmists want people to believe they believe Al Gore is telling the facts to all of the world’s climatologists, not the other way around.

  236. #236 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    August 26, 2015


    You’re hilarious, Stuart. As the average punter couldn’t give a fig about Mann or Steyn, and the pro-Steyn verdict will be a mere blip within one news cycle in the mainstream press, who, exactly, is going to do the hard work of trying to make sure that “climate science as a whole” suffers a hit in public opinions?

    There is no chance the verdict will be “pro-Steyn,” given wha tthe judges already ruled on. As for climatology “taking a hit,” the subject is libel (defamation); the law suit has nothing at all to do with climatology— and “Stuart” of course knows that fact already.

  237. #237 Gareth
    United Kingdom
    August 31, 2015

    “If Steyn wins, regardless of the legal wording or technicalities involved in the verdict, Mann is a fraud is the eyes of the casual observer. And because his face and work is so entwined in climate science, the entire field will suffer”
    In reality, the use of tree rings as thermometers has nothing to do with the central question – how much effect CO2 is having on the climate. The problem is that the army of environmental activists who want to Save the Planet have swallowed Mann’s nonsense and will now die in a trench they ought to have abandoned long ago.

  238. #238 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 1, 2015


    In reality, the use of tree rings as thermometers has nothing to do with the central question – how much effect CO2 [….]

    Er.. ah… the subject is Dr. Mann being defamed and slandered by Mark Steyn. In reality, “the central question” is malice by the “free market” cult towards scientists. See the problem now?

  239. #239 Gareth
    United Kingdom
    September 3, 2015

    I see your problem. You can’t bring yourself to look at the evidence against Mann and his stick.

  240. #240 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 3, 2015

    Been a while since I checked in, and am amazed at how many people just don’t get it. This case is about free speech, the crown jewel of our individual rights. It has nothing to do with science, as the only court in which scientific issues should be debated is the court of public opinion.

    I really don’t have the time to rehash all of the statements Rick has made. Suffice to say, I am a licensed lawyer and have more than a passing familiarity with free speech law (read: have litigated this issue). Most of you are emotionally involved, and can’t understand basic points (calling me a shoplifter is not the same because I am not a public figure. The malice requirement does not apply. Why do you think Mann is taking the laughable position of saying he is not a public figure, after first claiming to be a Nobel Prize recipient).

    Mann does not have a case: pure and simple. What you guys don’t get is that Steyn WANTS trial. He submitted to personal jurisdiction in D.C., despite the fact that he does not live or work in the District (neither does Mann, by the way, which brings up interesting venue issues). He didn’t join the anti-slap appeal. Steyn is doing what Mann should be doing: duking it out in the court of public opinion instead of hiding behind lawyers.

    Gee, I wonder what Mann is afraid of?

    All you need to know, again, is the amici briefs filed by nearly EVERY. SINGLE. MAJOR. MEDIA.OUTLET. Media outlets don’t join litigation on scientific issues; you can bet your bottom dollar they while litigate to the end when they see (rightly, in this case) someone trying to stifle debate in a free and open society.

  241. #241 dean
    September 3, 2015

    “I see your problem. You can’t bring yourself to look at the evidence against Mann and his stick”

    No, not at all: the problem is folks like you who continually ignore the fact that Mann’s work has been substantiated and that nothing “untoward” is behind it.

    In other words – the problem is the dishonest assertions you repeat.

  242. #242 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 3, 2015

    I just skimmed over some of the comments, and most of you don’t realize you are making Steyn’s case. A debate is raging about the legitimacy of the hockey stick and, yes, whether information was cherry picked (leading to pre-determined, or “fraudulent” result as opposed to one based solely on the evidence). It is like a political pollster who weights a poll with an inordinate amount of conservatives or liberals. Or course the results will be skewed, and the poll fraudulent.

    Desertphile, why are you so afraid of free debate? For example, I absolutely abhor holocaust revisionists, but I absolutely think they should be allowed to make their case, and even call main-line holocaust historians fraudulent. At the end of the day, it is the revisionists who end up looking like…what is the word you used above…”idiots.”

    If Steyn’s thoughts on this issue are equally bad, he will be exposed for what he is.

  243. #243 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 4, 2015


    A debate is raging about the legitimacy of the hockey stick….

    Not among scientists.


    Desertphile, why are you so afraid of free debate?

    Dan, why do you beat your husband?

  244. #244 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 4, 2015


    This case is about free speech….

    li-bel Law. (n.) 1.a. A false publication in writing, printing, or typewriting or in signs or pictures that maliciously damages a person’s reputation. b. The act or an instance of presenting such a statement to the public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

    cal-um-ny (n., pl. cal-um-nies). 1. A false statement maliciously made to injure another’s reputation. 2. The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander.

    mal-ice (n.) 1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite. 2. Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another. [Middle English, fro

  245. #245 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 4, 2015

    Desertphile, you just don’t get it, and never will. I am a licensed attorney. I am well-aware of the law. Again, saying I “beat my husband” is not a proper analogy because (very slowly now, so even you can understand): I…..AM…..NOT….A…..PUBLIC….PERSON. That distinction is critical for legal purposes. If I was running for political office, your statement would absolutely be protected speech and not subject to civil remedies (think of all the allegations, including criminal, that have been made against politicians even in the past 15 years. Any lawsuits?).

    That being said, do you honestly think I now have a valid case for libel against you?

    You concede Mann has to prove malice. How is Mann going to prove Steyn’s sole purpose for his post was a “desire to harm” Mann, or see Mann suffer “extreme ill will or spite?” How is Mann going to prove that Steyn’s words were directed at him personally, and not his research?

    Steyn think’s Mann’s work is not reliable because he thinks Mann used targeted information to reach a desired conclusion (“fraud” has more then one meaning; i.e., calling someone a “fraud” is not the same as calling someone a criminal. Example: “Dr. Mann is a fraud because he falsely claimed to be Nobel Prize winner”). Mann and his supporters often respond to these accusations by referring to investigations that purportedly “exonerate” Mann. Steyn responds by saying that at lease one of those investigations cannot be taken seriously, in large part because we know the same entity that conducted the investigation conducted a sham-investigation designed to protect one of Mann’s colleagues from accusations of child-abuse. If, per Steyn, an institution such as Penn State will conduct a joke of an investigation as to protect a prominent faculty member from such heinous accusations, doesn’t it seem to reason they might do the same when investigating another prominent faculty member for the far less serious allegation of academic dishonesty?

    Steyn also thinks someone who misrepresents their credentials (Nobel Prize recipient, see above) cannot be trusted to conduct un-biased research.

    Look, you can agree with Steyn, or you can think he is the biggest idiot in the world. The salient point is Steyn’s blog post was legitimate political discourse. I promise you the New York Times disagrees with Steyn’s position. But they recognize the chilling impact Mann’s legal action, if successful, will have on free-debate.

    Why is this so hard for you to understand? Instead of claiming the citizenry of this country should not have free-speech rights, why don’t you spend your time building your case for AGW, and proposed remedies?

  246. #246 Greg Laden
    September 4, 2015

    Mann’s lawsuit has nothing to do with free debate, Dan, but you did manage to badly mangle the arguments in your particular missive. What is your motivation, I wonder?

  247. #247 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 4, 2015

    Greg, this coming from the person who said (comment #46) that “this case is not about free speech. It is about libel.” In a thread full of stupid comments, that takes the cake by a long shot.

    Look, I could give you a primer on First Amendment laws as it relates to the press, but I don’t have the time or the inclination. I just like to amuse myself during lunch. Suffice to say that, even applying Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., (which held that opinion pieces can be actionable under certain-limited circumstances) doesn’t help Mann here.

    The comment about Jerry Sandusky, which Steyn didn’t make, was hyperbole. Second, unlike Milkovich (in which perjury was the issue), the content of Steyn’s post is difficult to prove or disprove. It contested comment is the hockey-stick (it is not libelous to disagree with even proven science; after all, the flat earth society still exists). The contested portion is the “cherry picking” data. It will be hard to prove that, since, like a political pollster, it is not a clear-cut answer. Steyn and others can reasonably say, based on the East Anglia emails, Mann and others have ignored certain data while simultaneously relying on other, favorable data. Steyn can also reasonably say, as he did, that the Penn State investigation was a sham.

    It is funny, Greg, that you criticize my conclusions but don’t offer rebuttal. It is that hard to grasp the concept that media organizations would not voluntarily file “friends of the court” briefs on behalf of a commentator most of them disagree with if significant issues of free speech weren’t at issue?

  248. #248 Brainstorms
    September 4, 2015

    Dan, are you claiming that there are no lawyers anywhere out there who would take issue with your point, and therefore would not disagree with you, not be willing to defend Mann, etc.?

    If not, please speculate as to why they would, particularly in light of your points given above. Please be sure to explain any apparent/actual contradictions revealed by your answer, especially as they apply to these media organizations and their motivations.

  249. #249 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 4, 2015


    You can’t bring yourself to look at the evidence against Mann and his stick

    Your cult refuses to produce that evidence. See the problem?

  250. #250 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 4, 2015


    No, not at all: the problem is folks like you who continually ignore the fact that Mann’s work has been substantiated and that nothing ‘untoward’ is behind it.

    Over 30 “hockey sticks” now, and the cult still attacks two (M, B, and H’s) and ignores the rest. Meanwhile, THE ICE IS STILL MISSING! If MBH98 and MBH99 had never been derived by scientists, humanity would still know Earth is warming sharply and anomalously.

  251. #251 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 4, 2015


    […] Desertphile, you just don’t get it, and never will. I am a licensed attorney. I am well-aware of the law. Again, saying I ‘beat my husband’ is not a proper analogy ….

    I am sorry, for any of your clients if any, that your are a “licensed attorney.” You have no idea what the legal issue is regarding Steyn and Dr Mann, which makes you a piss poor “licensed attorney.”

    The analogy fits. You falsely stated as fact that I am “so afraid of free debate,” under the pretense of “asking a question.” Therefore I did the exact same thing: I (presumably) falsely stated you beat your husband under the pretense of asking you why you beat your husband. If my tit for tat upset you, why doesn’t upset you when you titted?

  252. #252 Brainstorms
    September 4, 2015

    Well, that’s another challenge you can lay at the feet of the science-denying global conspiracy alarmists:

    “Since you disavow the authenticity of the results described in MBH98 and MBH99, let’s hypothesize their never having been written — which eliminates the issues you raise with them, since you can now be content that they no longer exist as published papers. Now, please describe the state of Earth’s climate as it would exist without those papers having been written.”

    I’ll bet most of them would argue that in that case, the climate anomalies we’ve been observing and that have been regularly reported on the news would no longer exist either.

    Which explains why they’re so desperate to invalidate Mann, et al. They really think that killing the messenger makes the problem go away, too.

  253. #253 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 4, 2015


    Mann’s lawsuit has nothing to do with free debate, Dan [….]

    Obviously (except for the FOX Network obeyers). Dr. Mann has always welcomed criticism and debate; if Steyn has a legitimate criticism, he should write a paper on the subject and submit it to a science journal.

  254. #254 Mal Adapted
    September 4, 2015

    Gareth:

    The problem is that the army of environmental activists who want to Save the Planet have swallowed Mann’s nonsense and will now die in a trench they ought to have abandoned long ago.

    Are you really crediting Mike Mann as the sole inspiration for an “army of environmental activists”? That’s only marginally less nonsensical than blaming it all on Al Gore. You apparently think the whole consensus case for AGW rests on the Hockey Stick alone. You have to be ignoring the entire 190-year history of climate science, from Fourier’s time until today, and crediting Mann with super-human powers of persuasion.

    The Serengeti strategy seems to have made Mann the Antichrist to you AGW-deniers, and the Hockey Stick the mark of the beast. You’re announcing your ignorance and credulity to the world. Whether or not I’m an environmental activist, Mann can’t take sole credit for my resolute desire to Save the Planet from fanatical science-deniers like you!

  255. #255 John Mashey
    United States
    September 4, 2015

    I can’t imagine why anyone would ascribe the slightest weight to an anonymous commenter who claims to be a lawyer, and also demonstrates ignorance of the case.

    1) Anyone who thinks that the Penn State exoneration of Mann had anything to do with the Sandusky case …’
    hasn’t bothered to learn even a smidgeon about academic misconduct complaints.
    See See No Evil …, pp.68-69, where I comment on cases at U of Colorado and Penn State.
    Likewise, even a cursory examination of the PSU org chart would tell someone that
    there is little similarity between:
    a) A an academic misconduct complaint that goes through a a publicly-specified process (pretty typical of misconduct processes, of which I’ve studied dozens), managed by the VP Research and various academics under the Provost.
    The President has zero role in the procedure. PSU was especially open in publishing the reports.

    b) and a somewhat-weird complaint that comes via a coach through several levels up to the President, through Intercollegiate Athletics.

    Now, if Dan wants to make a formal allegation of misconduct against the people who handled the Mann allegations under his real name, I’ll be glad to transmit to friends there.

    Generally, serious Dunning-Kruger afflictees, especially anonymous ones, aren’t worth bothering according any respect, but maybe Dan will prove me wrong by saying “oops, I didn’t know anything about this. I withdraw that comment.”

    As a PSU grad who actually knows about research misconduct processes at PSU and elsewhere, and who knows *very good* libel lawyers, I violate my usual rule to ignore D-Kers, but some of the information may be useful for others.

    The Sandusky/Mann analogy was bogus, as bogus as the claim there was serious scientific debate over any fraud in MBH98/99.

    The fraud was in McIntyre+McKItrick(2005) and its surrounding PR campaign, including the whole Wegman Report.
    ,

  256. #256 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 4, 2015


    Are you really crediting Mike Mann as the sole inspiration for an ‘army of environmental activists?’

    That’s a *HUGE* step up from the usual denialists’ insistence that it’s Al Gore dictating to the world’s scientists what to conclude.

    All the smart kids are laughing at him, and he doesn’t know why….

  257. #257 Greg Laden
    September 4, 2015

    No, Desertphile, you don’t understand. It was Al Gore who did all the climate science and Michael Mann who did all the political and outreach stuff.

    Jeesh.

  258. #258 Richard Simons
    September 4, 2015

    Mike Mann might be a public figure, but surely that is in large measure due to the decision of Steyn and others to target him?

  259. #259 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 5, 2015


    No, Desertphile, you don’t understand. It was Al Gore who did all the climate science and Michael Mann who did all the political and outreach stuff.

    Ah, thank you. It all makes sense now. I bet Dr. Mann is a Mooslum born in Kenya, darn him. I demand to see his birth certificate!

  260. #260 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 5, 2015


    Mike Mann might be a public figure, but surely that is in large measure due to the decision of Steyn and others to target him?

    That appears to be the case, as Dr. Mann often mentioned that when he is interviewed. He has used the phrase “dragged unwillingly” when he has talked about his books and his work in communicating the sciences.

  261. #261 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 11, 2015

    I am glad to see you guys acknowledge the “public person” distinction in libel cases. As for Mann being an “unwilling” public person, 2 points: (1) I unaware of any legal authority setting forth the proposition that “unwilling” public persons have different standard than “willing” public persons. From a legal standpoint, it is a distinction without a difference; (2) Even if it did, Dr. Mann is not an unwilling public person. Nobel Prize winners are public persons. If you falsely claim to fall within a category that is, by definition, public, you cannot then claim you are “unwilling” a public person. It would be like me falsely claiming to be a member of the New England Patriots, and then suing for defamation if someone accused me of cheating based on spy-gate, deflate-gate, headset-gate, etc.

    On that note, do any of you think Bellicheck has a libel case against members of the press who claim the Patriots Super Bowls are tainted?

  262. #262 Brainstorms
    September 11, 2015

    So that begs the question: What is the legal definition of “public person”, and how will they prove that such a definition applies to Mann?

    If you are indeed a (practicing) lawyer, you know that the outcome of a jury trial is far from certain.

  263. #263 Mal Adapted
    September 11, 2015

    Brainstorms:

    So that begs the question: What is the legal definition of “public person”, and how will they prove that such a definition applies to Mann?

    The question has been begged, and is now moot. John Mashey pointed out upthread that the first judge has already ruled Mann to be a public figure.

  264. #264 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 11, 2015

    Mal Adapted: I was not aware that the first judge already decided that issue, but it makes sense. It is similar to a plaintiff’s classification in a premises liability case (i.e., invitee, licensee, trespasser, etc). It is a legal, not factual, issue for the court to decide because it determines the defendant’s duty (another legal, not factual, issue) to the plaintiff; i.e., does the defendant owe plaintiff to avoid negligently making false statements (private person), or is the duty simply to refrain from intentionally making false statements (public person)

    Btw, Desertphile, I am glad you have conceded the relevance of this distinction, and by implication admitted that I am right and you were wrong regarding your “I beat my husband” analogy.

    And, Richard Simmons, Mann sued Steyn, so please explain how Steyn targeted Mann. He published research on an issue of significant importance to society. Isn’t the public permitted to critique that research?

  265. #265 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 11, 2015

    Dr. Mann and Bill Bellicheck really are in similar situations. Dr. Mann has been accused of fraud/cheating regarding his crowning career achievement — the hockey stick graph. Bellicheck has been accused of fraud/cheating regarding his Super Bowl wins, likewise the crowning achievement of his career.

    Notice the different responses. Mann runs around filing lawsuits in multiple countries to try and stop people from commenting on it (see, also, Tim Ball in Canada). Bellicheck, on the other hand, goes to the press conference, denies the allegations, and states why claims of cheating false; i.e., his team won 3 SB’s in 4 years because it was one of the most talented teams ever. He then listed the players, etc.

    Bellicheck is “litigating” the allegations against him in the court of public opinion. Mann should do same.

  266. #266 Greg Laden
    September 11, 2015

    These are not even slightly comparable. Bellicheck has been caught and shown to run an organization that cheats all the time, and has so for years. There is not one shred of evidence at all suggesting Mann has done anything wrong. Only bullshit accusations.

    Now, run along, Dan.

  267. #267 Marco
    September 12, 2015

    Dan, Mann has been through official investigations, and those cleared him of any wrongdoing. I think Belichick would consider a defamation suit, too, if he gets cleared of wrongdoing and then several media outlets or other opinion makers spread allegations of wrongdoing (and notably stated as “fact”) without pointing out the actual fact that he has been cleared.

    Note that I have seen several commentators retract statements regarding Belichick. Perhaps it was their own moral compass that compelled them to do so (I certainly hope this is the case). Perhaps someone tapped their shoulder and said “retract or get a lawyer”.

  268. #268 Laws of Nature
    September 12, 2015

    I would like to cite a comment from WUWT, describing the problems with Mann’s (et al.) 1998 method+proxies
    We should be able to aggree on the facts mentioned in there (giving high statistical weight to proxies of dubious quality if they match modern temperature trends) – Mann can be blamed for not discussing the problems with that beside knowing about it before publishing his paper:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/28/a-detailed-review-of-the-book-a-disgrace-to-the-profession-by-mark-steyn/
    Brandon Shollenberger
    August 30, 2015 at 8:45 am
    “[..]Mann had many proxies. Most were not created with PCA. PCA was something that was applied to a few large data sets to reduce them to a smaller number of proxies. For instance, when Mann had 70 North American tree ring series which went back to 1400 AD, he used PCA to reduce them to 15 PCAs. He then chose to use two of those PCAs (how he decided what number to keep is a mystery as the explanation he’s given is untrue). Those two PCAs were then put in with his list of 20 other proxies which went back to 1400 (including the Gaspe proxy, which really only went back to 1404, but had been extended back to 1400).

    That one or two proxies out of 22 was biased shouldn’t have been a significant problem. That means Mann’s faulty implementation of PCA wouldn’t have been enough to create a hockey stick on its own. The reason he was able to create a hockey stick is what I said above, he weighted his proxies based on how well they correlated to the modern temperature record. Naturally, proxies with strong hockey stick shapes correlated very well to the modern temperature record. That meant they got a great deal of weight. That rendered 20 of his 22 proxies which went back to 1400 effectively irrelevant. The one proxy which wasn’t effectively rendered irrelevant was the Gaspe proxy, which also had a strong hockey stick shape (and had been artificially extended back to 1400 for that very reason).

    The thing is, you could still get a hockey stick without Mann’s faulty implementation of PCA because of the Gaspe proxy because his method of weighting proxies introduced such strong biases. You could have done the same just by using any other proxy with a hockey stick shape. Mann’s PCA matters only in that it was the way Mann came up with one of his hockey stick shaped proxies. Other than that though, it’s not that important. What really matters is when you give weight to proxies based on how well they correlate to the modern instrumental record, you heavily bias your results toward a hockey stick.

    That’s the central problem of Mann’s original hockey stick.[..]”

  269. #269 Marco
    September 13, 2015

    LoN, what makes Shollenberger’s assertions “facts”?

    Wahl & Amman (2007) have shown you get essentially the same shape if you do not even use PCA (and thus do not assign any specific weight to e.g. the Gaspe proxy). That creates significant problems for Shollenberger’s narrative.

    Not that any of this will change your view, of course…

  270. #270 Laws of Nature
    September 13, 2015

    Well aeh.. your statement is included in Brandon’s statement, look:
    My citation “[..]The thing is, you could still get a hockey stick without Mann’s faulty implementation of PCA because of the Gaspe proxy because his method of weighting proxies introduced such strong biases. [..]”

    Marco”[..]Wahl & Amman (2007) have shown you get essentially the same shape if you do not even use PCA (and thus do not assign any specific weight to e.g. the Gaspe proxy). [..]”

    So your your other statment about my view (which is of course very irrelevant) seems to be a vey silly personal attack, which helps this discussion how?

  271. #271 Marco
    September 13, 2015

    It isn’t included in that statement. W&A used all proxies, no weighting, and got essentially the same result.

    My ‘personal attack’ is not irrelevant. I predicted your next step, and you did not disappoint.

  272. #272 Laws of nature
    September 13, 2015

    Well, you said something before, now you say something else.
    We can talk about W&A later, first let me point out that Mann did the weighting knowingly wrong and his back then “new method” is bad in a way Brandon described correctly.
    Your critique on him was wrong.

    You are correct, while as I wrote my opinion is quite is quite irrelevant, the fact that you use personal attack (and even seem proud of it in a twisted way) disqualifies you from any serious discussion. Which reinforces a point skeptics made, why would there be a serious discussion as long as the status quo provides plenty of money to the alarmists.. this might change faster than you think, but do what you must!

  273. #273 Marco
    September 13, 2015

    “did the weighting knowingly wrong”

    Evidence for this claim is, of course and expectedly, not provided. This is why your opinion is relevant, because you will interpret something based on your beliefs, rather than on evidence provided. This is why you claimed Shollenberger provided “facts”, when they were in reality just “assertions” (and thus believe whatever he describes is correct), and now claim Mann did something “knowingly wrong”, even though Shollenberger does not even make this claim – it is your own interpretation.

    If you want to be a serious discussion partner, you just might want to consider the possibility that Shollenberger is incorrect in his criticism, and even more importantly, that your own interpretation of what Shollenberger shows may be incorrect.

    I myself am one of those pesky scientists who reads scientific papers and judges from there.

  274. #274 Laws of nature
    September 13, 2015

    “I myself am one of those pesky scientists who reads scientific papers and judges from there.”
    Yet you fail to point out any flaw in Brandon’s summary, this discussion is very one directional, when it comes to the facts so far. The claim that you have read papers does not help the discussion (especially given your proven lack of understanding what Brandon wrote..)
    As for fact that Mann published knowingly an incorrect (because incomplete) analysis, you should make yourself familiar with the “censored” directory, it shows that Mann et al. were familiar with other proxy weightings and choose knowingly to ignore this and not to discuss it in their publication. And of course they were aware, that their north american trees are doubious proxies.

  275. #275 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 13, 2015


    I would like to cite a comment from WUWT….

    Why? We don’t “do” batshit crazy here.

  276. #276 Marco
    September 13, 2015

    “Yet you fail to point out any flaw in Brandon’s summary”

    Why should I point out the flaws in Brandon’s summary, when this has already been done EIGHT years ago by Wahl & Amman in the peer reviewed literature?!

    Wonderful how those pseudoskeptics keep on bringing up long debunked talking points and then demand they be discussed again. And then again. And for good measures, again. Because as long as you can complain about a 17 year old paper, you do not need to face reality.

  277. #277 Brainstorms
    September 13, 2015

    LoN, I’m skeptical… If we are not to take Mann’s results seriously because there may be a problem with his method, then the correct (and obvious) course of action is to examine multiple other papers on the subject that have been published since then.

    There are multiple other such papers on this subject. One (again, obvious) reality check is to verify whether or not these additional papers on the subject agree with one another. …stand by… They do.

    Interestingly, they also support the same conclusion as Mann’s paper.

    So, LoN, are you complaining that Mann used faulty techniques to arrive at the correct conclusions?

    Or are you complaining that Mann arrived at correct conclusions?

  278. #278 Magma
    September 13, 2015

    Marco, #276

    +1 for your concluding paragraph

  279. #279 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 13, 2015


    Why should I point out the flaws in Brandon’s summary, when this has already been done EIGHT years ago by Wahl & Amman in the peer reviewed literature?!

    That’s what anti-science paranoid conspiracy alarmist net.k00ks do: insist the previous hundreds of debunkings aren’t good enough, and one more is needed. The cultists’ behavior is designed to waste your time and effort, distracting pro-science people’s efforts elsewhere.

  280. #280 Laws of Nature
    September 13, 2015

    “[..]Why should I point out the flaws in Brandon’s summary, when this has already been done EIGHT years ago by Wahl & Amman in the peer reviewed literature?![..]”
    “[..]So, LoN, are you complaining that Mann used faulty techniques to arrive at the correct conclusions?[..]”

    Well, first we should be capable of answering (perhaps maybe even without too many insults) if Mann et all did use a faulty method and knowingly omitted critical results, Marco and Dessertphile seems to deny that.
    I think this is not a matter of opinion and I am not complaining about anything so far, just stating/citing facts and these can either be debated or ignored or, which seems to be the case here, answered with personal attacks.
    It is my reading, if anything, W&A acknowledge the issues of Mann method and try to deal with it (btw there is a good answer of S. McIntyre to that paper, which everybody should read carefully)
    So, I conclude based on the statments written here, that Brandon’s summary of Mann’s paper is valid even considering that there is a W&A paper out there. Maro chooses not to counter any facts, because “this has already been done EIGHT years ago by Wahl & Amman in the peer reviewed literature” and ignores, that the key sentence of his reading and Brandon is basically identical (see #270).
    BTW, W&A is quite clear (and it is almost trivial), that any reduction in the weighting of a hockey stick shaped proxy, reduces the hockey stickness of the result

  281. #281 Brainstorms
    September 13, 2015

    Therefore, given that Mann’s paper is more than 15 years old, and several other papers on the subject have been published, and those papers show the same result, and those papers and their techniques have not been brought into question (as Mann’s) have…

    What then is the point of beating a horse that has since died, and is now being flayed into dust?

    What’s the purpose of continuing to prosecute this issue?

    Once we know what your purpose is, we can provide cogent responses that ought to satisfy you. What is your purpose, LoN?

  282. #282 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    September 13, 2015

    From: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-hockey-stick
    (All the referred to graphs can be seen there.)

    “Here it is with the McIntyre/McKitrick corrections applied… still a Hockey Stick.
    Source: http://www.realclimate.org/images/WA_RC_Figure1.jpg

    Because it bears repeating: THE HOCKEY STICK, EVEN WITH CORRECTIONS APPLIED, IS STILL A HOCKEY STICK.
    Here’s the Hockey Stick comparing 20 vs. 22 proxies which has been argued destroys the Hockey Stick… but it’s still a Hockey Stick.
    Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion

    Here’s the ‘Hockey Stick’ compared to a bunch of other proxies that don’t even use tree ring data… and it’s still a Hockey Stick.
    The Hockey Stick combined with other temperature proxies and reconstructions that are not based on tree rings.
    Source: NOAA/NCDC Mann 2008 – realclimate.org 2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/

    Here’s the ‘Hockey Stick’ mixed with some of the same and some different proxies:
    The Hockey Stick
    Source: 2004/12/temperature variations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/ ”

    I’d also add that this isn’t the first time LoN has more or less stated that the HS is the result of a hoax. Here’s an earlier comment, followed by Gavin Schmidt’s answer:

    97
    Laws of Nature says:
    23 Jul 2010 at 11:44 AM
    Hi Gavin,
    Also on your reply to #83 states “The test of whether this is useful is whether you have some predictability in the validation interval, and whether the basic patterns hold up when you add more data, change the method, hold back some data etc. And they are. – gavin]”
    Well, somehow I see the opposite .. If you improve the proxies used in MBH98 by throwing out some Pines which are non-temperature Proxies more than 99% of your result disappears. This looks just like the opposite of what you are saying .. particulary in the light that the method used in that paper was shown to sometimes mine hockey-sticks out of noise.
    [Response: You are very confused I’m afraid. Quantitative methods actually come up with numbers that can be checked by anyone. Your ‘99%’ is just pulled out of your .a**e. Look, the charge that the HS is simply a statistical artefact is just wrong. If you switch to a more standard centering it is still there. If you drop the north american tree rings, it is still there, if you include more recently published proxies, it is there, if you dump the tree rings altogether, it is still there. It’s there because the planet really is warming. Why is this such an issue for you? It doesn’t have any influence on the attribution of current climate changes to human forcings, it doesn’t impact the radiative properties of CO2, so really, why do you care so much that you are willing to just make up stuff? – gavin]
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

    LoN might consider answering Gavin Schmidt’s question here. He/she might also consider answering Brainstorms’ questions instead of evading them. For good measure:
    http://environmentalforest.blogspot.dk/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html

  283. #283 Obstreperous Applesauce
    September 13, 2015

    “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
    ― Cardinal Richelieu

    ->… My gut speaks to me (in tongues with feelings and longings) so I know for certain that if we scrounge around here long enough playing word games, we’ll find my long lost boogeyman. C’mon guys, be proper gentlemen and fritter your lives away talking to my colon!

  284. #284 Laws of Nature
    September 13, 2015

    It is starting be repetitive..
    >> What’s the purpose of continuing to prosecute this issue?
    There seems to be an ongoing confusion if Mann’s paper used a faulty method and Mann et al. knew about it at the time of their publishing even more15 years afterwards.
    I cited Brandon’s summary of the paper in order to clarify this issue.
    The summary is clear enough and together with the content of the “censored” directory my conclusion from it is, that the method is indeed faulty and Mann et al. knew this at the time of publishing and choose to ignore it, which is fraud t least in the scientific sense.
    Nothing said here so far challenged that conclusion.
    The paper should be withdrawn or corrected.

  285. #285 dean
    September 13, 2015

    LON, some of the people here may think you are working very hard to seem dishonest and incapable of understanding that the things you claim to be serious issues that haven’t been addressed are no such thing, have been addressed, and the ideas supported.

    I have more faith in you than they do. I think you’re just an idiot.

  286. #286 Laws of Nature
    September 13, 2015

    dean.
    “It is starting be repetitive..”
    ” I am not complaining about anything so far, just stating/citing facts and these can either be debated or ignored or, which seems to be the case here, answered with personal attacks.”
    do you think this is going somewhere?
    If not, who’s fault is it given that we are trying to have a civilized debate, yours or mine?
    May I give you the advise, to read all you can find carefully and eventually you might be able to contribute something meaningful.

  287. #287 Brainstorms
    September 13, 2015

    LoN, if your issue is simply to hang Mann out to dry over just this one paper, then perhaps it’s best to wait for the jury’s decision on the matter.

    As for our governing bodies making policy decisions regarding addressing AGW, Mann’s paper is long obsolete for that purpose — and would be even if your issue didn’t exist — as many other peer-reviewed papers published since have established the need for (immediately) putting policies into place.

    Since your issue with Mann’s paper is disconnected from AGW political policy formulation, what do you hope to achieve by having his paper withdrawn or corrected? Who and what will benefit from this? And how so?

  288. #288 dean
    September 13, 2015

    I have read. Here’s some advise (sic) back: reread the things you’re unhappy about, read the things you’ve been told about, but try to understand thus time. Look at the explanations by people who are honest (hint: you won’t find them at Watt’s place).
    But I have a feeling you’re not interested in learning anything, or checking facts: it seeks as though you’ve already made up your mind and don’t like having it pointed out that you’re wrong.

  289. #289 Laws of Nature
    September 13, 2015

    “Since your issue with Mann’s paper is disconnected from AGW political policy formulation, what do you hope to achieve by having his paper withdrawn or corrected? Who and what will benefit from this?”
    Are you seriously question, what happens if a fraudster is exposed? Or if that should be done because it was more than 15 years ago?
    Actually I also happen to disagree with the assumption, that this paper is disconnected from AGW policy, but we cannot move on, before this or any other incorrect paper is corrected. As long as it exists in it current form it must be criticized as flawed tainting the whole field!
    As for the dozens of other papers, they have to be looked at one by one and criticized as well, S. McIntyre and others did that with quite a few over the years and was able to find serious flaws in most of them, dubious proxies, non updated proxies incorrect math, unproven math and so on, the body of evidence might be more fragile then you assume.. in any case let’s have a clear verdict on Mann’s paper and his behavior in 1998 first:
    Brandon summary is clear enough and together with the content of the “censored” directory my conclusion from it is, that the method is indeed faulty and Mann et al. knew this at the time of publishing and choose to ignore it, which is fraud t least in the scientific sense.

  290. #290 Laws of Nature
    September 13, 2015

    dean,
    from you thee is again no contribution, beside personal attacks this is the 2nd time now.
    I just keep counting, you slowly discredit yourself further, hmm in hindsight I should have done the same with dessertphile!

  291. #291 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 13, 2015


    Once we know what your purpose is, we can provide cogent responses that ought to satisfy you. What is your purpose, LoN?

    Public masturbation. And the entertainment value is turning tedious.

    Thirty-two “hockey sticks” at the moment, all showing what MBH98 and MBH99 do. Plus the world’s ice is melting.

  292. #292 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 13, 2015


    LoN, some of the people here may think you are working very hard to seem dishonest and incapable of understanding that the things you claim to be serious issues that haven’t been addressed are no such thing, have been addressed, and the ideas supported.

    There was a vote? Damn, I missed the vote! Is there still time for me to cast a ballot under the “Ignorant mouth-breathing FOX Network believer” column? Many of these anti-science conspiracy alarmists really as as proudly ignorant as they appear to be.

  293. #293 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 13, 2015


    If not, who’s fault is it given that we are trying to have a civilized debate, yours or mine?

    Er, Freak of Nature (may I just call you “Freak?” Thank you in advance)— the civilized debate on the subject ended half a dozen years ago, where it belonged: in the world’s science journals, among scientists. Everyone but you conspiracy alarmists have moved on, having found nothing significantly wrong with MBH98 nor MBH99. We now have at least thirty-one more “hockey sticks,” and the ice is still missing.

    Freak, if you cultists now want to debate MBH98 and MBH99, where the bloody hell were you when scientists were doing that, ten years ago?

  294. #294 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 13, 2015

    “Since your issue with Mann’s paper is disconnected from AGW political policy formulation, what do you hope to achieve by having his paper withdrawn or corrected? Who and what will benefit from this?”

    Are you seriously question, what happens if a fraudster is exposed?

    What fraudster? You? The question was and is: “Since your issue with Mann’s paper is disconnected from AGW political policy formulation, what do you hope to achieve by having his paper withdrawn or corrected? Who and what will benefit from this?”

  295. #295 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 13, 2015


    hmm in hindsight I should have done the same with dessertphile!

    I’m sorry, I stopped dating public masturbators after that embarrassing incident in New Jersey during the Carter campaign rally, which I’m still paying a head shrink to help me get over.

  296. #296 Brainstorms
    September 13, 2015

    “Since your issue with Mann’s paper is disconnected from AGW political policy formulation, what do you hope to achieve by having his paper withdrawn or corrected? Who and what will benefit from this?”

    You have yet to answer these important point… We’re waiting.

    “Are you seriously question, what happens if a fraudster is exposed?”

    That was not the question. Nice try to derail the inquiry to another issue.

    And your presupposition is invalid. No jury or peer-reviewed journal has found or even suspected Mann of fraud. You may withdraw your comment and get back to the subject at hand.

    “Or if that should be done because it was more than 15 years ago?”

    Your comment further lends support that Mann’s paper, considered on its own, has no real impact on the AGW mitigation policies issue…

    “Actually I also happen to disagree with the assumption, that this paper is disconnected from AGW policy”

    And we happen to disagree with your assumption that Mann committed any fraud. Your move.

    “but we cannot move on, before this or any other incorrect paper is corrected. As long as it exists in it current form it must be criticized as flawed tainting the whole field!”

    GOTCHA!!! Bullshit logical fallacy in the first degree!

    And it gives away your equally bullshit agenda.

    You, Loss of Nature, are a fraud.

  297. #297 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    September 14, 2015

    “Are you seriously question, what happens if a fraudster is exposed? Or if that should be done because it was more than 15 years ago?
    Actually I also happen to disagree with the assumption, that this paper is disconnected from AGW policy, but we cannot move on, before this or any other incorrect paper is corrected. As long as it exists in it current form it must be criticized as flawed tainting the whole field!”
    #289

    This passage answers whatever questions we may have. For Laws of Nature – interesting that semi-literate Galileo wannabes choose bloated, authoritative identities, and that persons who know science never do – the question isn’t if Mann is a fraudster, but whether or not he’ll be exposed. If he is exposed, then the whole AGW house of cards comes tumbling down. Multiple lines of evidence, nonsense! Everything depends on that one graph. If Mann isn’t exposed, it’s just further evidence of how widespread the conspiracy is, and what heroic truth seekers like LoN are up against. The stakes are huge. If the HS, or rather, all HSs aren’t withdrawn, the door to Agenda 21 is wide open.
    So the struggle against MBH must go on.

  298. #298 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    September 14, 2015

    LoN finds it ideologically convenient not to understand how science moves forward, so he/she accuses a first-of-its-kind paper of being corrupt because ensuing criticisms found that certain things could have been done better. To once again quote Gavin Schmidt:

    “Why didn’t the first multi-proxy paper deal with all issues and try all methodologies and come to all the conclusions? Because that is not the way science works. People try new things, issues arise, issues are dealt with and a more sophisticated understanding emerges. Some data is used, more data is gathered and more complete pictures arise. No single paper is ever perfect…”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

    Not perfect is not synonymous with fraudulent.

  299. #299 Laws of Nature
    September 14, 2015

    “Not perfect is not synonymous with fraudulent.”

    That might be right, but suppressing contradictory information is, and again after about 10 more postings with no information but personal attacks, Brandon’s summary in #268 still stands unchallenged. And as I said before together with the fact Mann et al. knew that the results hinge on the inclusion of dubious proxies (as shown in their other results hidden n the “censored” directory). They choose not to discuss it in their paper, which is scientific fraud.
    Even if his result is backed up by other works, no amount of insults will make this go away.

  300. #300 Julian Frost
    September 14, 2015

    Laws of Nature:

    suppressing contradictory information is [fraud]

    Where is your proof that contradictory information was suppressed?

    Brandon’s summary in #268 still stands unchallenged.

    Wrong. And your cite is from “Watt’s up with that”, a blog I wouldn’t trust if it said the sky was blue.

    he fact Mann et al. knew that the results hinge on the inclusion of dubious proxies (as shown in their other results hidden n the “censored” directory)

    Justify your assertion.

  301. #301 Laws of Nature
    September 14, 2015

    Julian Frost,

    well that is personal insults paired with denial.
    Just you (or others) saying it aint so, does not make it go away.
    I did not see any factual critiques on Brandon’s summary, could you please point to one (I do, however admit to might have overlooked something with all this noise here.. I truely hit a nerve, did I?)

    The “censored” directory really existed.
    And none of these results are discussed in MBH, which scientific fraud.

  302. #302 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    September 14, 2015

    #269:

    LoN, what makes Shollenberger’s assertions “facts”?

    Wahl & Amman (2007) have shown you get essentially the same shape if you do not even use PCA

    #273:

    did the weighting knowingly wrong”

    Evidence for this claim is, of course and expectedly, not provided.

    So please provide evidence.
    #276:

    “Yet you fail to point out any flaw in Brandon’s summary”

    Why should I point out the flaws in Brandon’s summary, when this has already been done EIGHT years ago by Wahl & Amman in the peer reviewed literature?!

    #282:

    THE HOCKEY STICK, EVEN WITH CORRECTIONS APPLIED, IS STILL A HOCKEY STICK.

    Oh heck with it. You have been refuted and have used a cite that has already been debunked.
    As for

    first let me point out that Mann did the weighting knowingly wrong and his back then “new method” is bad in a way Brandon described correctly.

    Evidence needed that Mann did things “knowingly wrong” and no, “Watt’s up with that” is not a good enough citation. And given that, as has been pointed out by the other commenters, multiple other studies have also arrived at the same conclusion, it doesn’t look like Brandon described it correctly at all.

  303. #303 dean
    September 14, 2015

    Lon is behaving amazingly similar to one of our local anti-vaccination loons: continues to claim some study showing a result he doesn’t like was done incorrectly but doesn’t provide evidence, ignores explanations about why the objections are bogus, and when people point out that continuing to provide evidence is a waste of time, claims it impossible to carry on an intelligent conversation.

    So Lon, same offer I give the antivsccinatio moron: detail what you think was wrong, and why. Provide the appropriate reasons for it – you will need to cite people who know how to carry out the work. Herr watt and his bin of loons won’t have anyone capable.

  304. #304 Laws of Nature
    September 14, 2015

    It is repetitive..

    “You have been refuted and have used a cite that has already been debunked.”
    Nope, the “censored” directory really existed.
    And none of these results are discussed in MBH, which is scientific fraud.
    As for the debunking of the statement that Mann’s methods were and are incorrect.. there are other papers with different methods, but that does not correct Mann’s incorrect weighting and the knowing use of dubious proxies. And also it does not debunk Brandon’s summary in any way. You are mistaken and Mann yet has to correct/withdraw his fraudulent paper.

  305. #305 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    September 14, 2015

    Laws of Nature: you haven’t provided proof, just assertions.

  306. #306 Marco
    September 14, 2015

    LoN, let’s just take your argumentation for a moment at face value. You believe it is fraudulent that Mann did not discuss in detail the various tests he performed where he censored proxies more or less one by one to test for robustness of the reconstruction (you *do* know that this is what the “censored” refers to, yes? Or did you think “censored” meant that he hid this data?).

    Then what do you call McIntyre not informing anyone that the “examples” of hockeystick-like shapes, that he claimed Mann’s PCA procedure mined for, where a selection of the top-1% most extreme hockeystick shapes? Surely you must now call that fraudulent, because he did not disclose this, even though this 100:1 cherry pick was explicitly included in his code.

    It does make your references to McIntyre as some sort of important critic a bit more difficult, eh? He did something *you* should consider fraudulent. So why believe someone who did something fraudulent?

  307. #307 dean
    September 14, 2015

    LON, stomping your foot and saying “fraud, fraud I say” is not evidence or proof. If you don’t understand that there is no hope for you.

    (And the things you view as insults directed at you would seem to be nothing but statements of fact.)

  308. #308 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    If Mann isn’t exposed, it’s just further evidence of how widespread the conspiracy is, and what heroic truth seekers like LoN are up against. The stakes are huge. If the HS, or rather, all HSs aren’t withdrawn, the door to Agenda 21 is wide open. So the struggle against MBH must go on.

    The children! SOMEONE think of the children!

  309. #309 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    That might be right, but suppressing contradictory information is….

    Yeah, Freak of Nature— if you ever see any scientists doing that, do be sure to complain, m’kay?

    And why is it okay for your cult to try doing that? Have you ever heard the phrase “double standard?”

  310. #310 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    Where is your proof that contradictory information was suppressed?

    Hell, forget proof: where is Fo’N’s evidence? [CRICKETS]

  311. #311 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    Lon is behaving amazingly similar to one of our local anti-vaccination loons….

    … and like a typical mouth-breathing Creationist [redundant, that]. Anti-science conspiracy alarmists love to pretend their anti-science behavior is “science,” and Creationists perfected the behavior “LoN” is now using. Their behavior can be summed up with: “But hey, I’m not making false statements under the pretense of ‘asking questions!’ I’m just asking loaded questions!”

  312. #312 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    (And the things you view as insults directed at you would seem to be nothing but statements of fact.)

    Laughing at clowns isn’t an insult either: we are supposed to laugh.

  313. #313 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 14, 2015

    The last 40 or so comments perfectly exemplify why Mann’s suit against lacks merit. I really have no idea if Mann’s suppressed contradictory information or not, and if he did, whether that would change the result of the hockey-stick graph. I am not a scientist, and will leave that to you good folks, whose scientific knowledge is vastly superior to mine. I do believe if Mann did suppress contradictory evidence, that shows bias and he loses all credibility, even if the suppressed information would not have changed the result.

    But, I do know Steyn’s blog post is protected speech. Calling someone a fraud does not necessarily mean you accused that person of committing fraud in a legal sense. Fraud also means “dishonest,” and Steyn is well within his rights to publicly think Mann is dishonest.

    The debate over Mann’s research is healthy for society. And, if Mann is confident in the method and results of his research, he should welcome it.

  314. #314 Greg Laden
    September 14, 2015

    Dan, that his suit has merit has already been determined. That he has not suppressed evidence or done anything like that has already been determined. That there is not a debate over the hockey stick of the kind Steyn claims is false. You are not a scientist, and somehow this leads you to pass the question on to those of us who are. Do you know who else is not a scientist? Steyn. He isn’t, I am, and I’m saying that the hockey stick is for real. So now you know!

    If you want to know more, see this:

    http://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-0011605016028824:3764848579&ie=UTF-8&q=hockey+stick&sa=Search&ref=#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=hockey%20stick&gsc.page=1

    and read these papers:

    Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)’s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

    Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.

    Bertrand et al. 2002: Reconstructed solar output, volcanic activity, land use changes, and greenhouse gas concentrations since AD 1000, then computed the expected temperature changes due to those forcings. Compared the computed temperature changes with two independent temperature reconstructions.

    Esper et al. 2002: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000 using tree ring chronologies.

    Cronin et al. 2003: Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.

    Pollack and Smerdon 2004: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.

    Esper et al. 2005: Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.

    Moberg et al. 2005: Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.

    Oerlemans 2005: Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe.
    Rutherford, et al. 2005: Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.

    D’Arrigo et al. 2006: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.

    Osborn and Briffa 2006: Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 2000 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.

    Hegerl et al. 2007: Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.

    Juckes et al. 2007: Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

    Wahl and Ammann 2007: Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.

    Wilson, et al. 2007: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.

    Mann et al. 2008: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.

    Kaufman, et al. 2009: Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.

    von Storch et al. 2009: Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.

    Frank et al. 2010: A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.

    Kellerhals et al. 2010: Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.

    Ljungqvist 2010: Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.

    Thibodeau et al. 2010: Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.

    Tingley and Huybers 2010a, 2010b: Used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.

    Büntgen et al. 2011: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.

    Kemp et al. 2011: Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

    Kinnard et al. 2011: Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.

    Martin-Chivelet et al. 2011: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites.
    Spielhagen et al. 2011: Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.

    Esper et al. 2012: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.

    Ljungqvist et al. 2012: Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.

    Melvin et al. 2012: Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.

    Abram et al. 2013: Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.

    Marcott, et al. 2013: Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.

    PAGES 2k Consortium 2013: Used multiple proxies (tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, stalagmites, pollen, etc) to reconstruct regional and global temperatures since AD 1.

    Rhodes et al. 2013: Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011.

  315. #315 Greg Laden
    September 14, 2015

    Also this:

  316. #316 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    The last 40 or so comments perfectly exemplify why Mann’s suit against lacks merit

    Is that a joke? I hope it is a joke because I laughed. If it was not a joke, perhaps you could discuss the problem with a mental health care provider.

    Did you see the part where both judges already ruled the law suit not only has merit, but that Dr. Mann is likely to win?

  317. #317 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    The debate over Mann’s research is healthy for society. And, if Mann is confident in the method and results of his research, he should welcome it.

    Dr. Mann did welcome the debate; he thanked everyone already who participated in the debate; the debate already happened and concluded several years ago. Been there; done that; got the signed souvenir hockey puck; went on to other projects.

    If you are upset that you missed the debate when it was happening, don’t be: there are many other science debates you may participate in.

  318. #318 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)’s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

    More specifically, HUMAN-PRODUCED greenhouse gases.

  319. #319 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015

    Post Script: you also missed the “Is it really not a flat disk like the Bible says?” debate also, Dan. No need to complain about that one either.

  320. #320 dean
    September 14, 2015

    “Is it really not a flat disk like the Bible says”

    Ooh, that was a good one. I remember the flat diskers saying god started the orbits by throwing the flat planets like frisbees, with just a little slant to start the curve.

  321. #321 dean
    September 14, 2015

    LON may not be the dumbest person around after all – there are nineteen members of the House that rival him.

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/09/nineteen-house-members-introduce-resolution-to-impeach-epa-chief.html/

  322. #322 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 14, 2015

    Sigh…some people will never just get it. First of all, the Court hasn’t ruled “Steyn has case.” The Court simply ruled that a genuine issue of fact remains for trial (i.e., did Steyn know the comments were false, and did he make the comments maliciously). Also, note, the Court’s Anti-Slapp decision (which Steyn did not take part in because, as I mentioned before, Steyn actually wants this case to proceed to show what a thin-skinned bully Mann is) is up on appeal. I suspect, if it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, the Anti-Slapp provision will be upheld and Steyn’s co-defendant’s will be out.

    That you would say the Court has already determined Mann has a case just proves your ignorance of all things legal. Courts are hesitant to grant dispositive motions early in the case if there is any potential factual dispute (the Anti-Slapp statute was a legal issue, subject to a Motion to Dismiss).

    Steyn wants discovery to proceed. He has responded to Mann’s, and has stated repeatedly that he wants Mann to respond to his discovery. It is normal, under FRCP 56(f), to deny summary judgment on the ground that discovery is still open. If, after the close of discovery, Mann has not adduced any evidence to meet his burden, the case will be ripe for summary judgment.

    All your points about Mann being exonerated, blah, blah, blah, don’t mean a damn thing. He is a public person and has a nearly impossible standard to meet. But hey, it is a issue of fact, so he is entitled to conduct discovery.

    You are right Greg. I am not a scientist, and I would not pretend to debate science with you. I am a lawyer, and free speech law (specifically, that subset of free speech law known as libel) is an area where I do have some expertise, as well as civil procedure and discovery.

    Mann doesn’t have a case, just like George W. Bush didn’t have a case against Dan Rather for using false documents in support of a false story. Again, STEYN CAN BE WRONG, and MANN WILL STILL BE FAR SHORT OF MEETING HIS LEGAL BURDEN.

    Steyn is on record saying he will not agree to dismiss Mann with each side to bear their own attorneys fees’ and costs. I certainly hope Dr. Mann has his checkbook ready, because he is going to owe Steyn will into seven-figures to pay his attorneys’ fees and costs when this is over…

  323. #323 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 14, 2015

    Desertphile: You are proof positive of the wisdom of our First Amendment jurisprudence, for without it, you would be less likely to make the vile, prejudicial comments you often make towards people who dare to disagree with you.

    You have insulted the gay community and those who are mentally ill just in making ad hominem attacks to me. Who knows what else you have said about other commentators.
    If your vile speech wasn’t protected, how would society know that you are homo-phobic and believe those who suffer from mental illness deserve ridicule?

    Isn’t free speech a great thing?

  324. #324 RB perkinson
    September 14, 2015

    “You are not a scientist, and somehow this leads you to pass the question on to those of us who are. Do you know who else is not a scientist? Steyn. He isn’t, I am, and I’m saying that the hockey stick is for real. So now you know!”
    Yet none of you is a lawyer and you pontificate on law with the self assurance of the 6 year old and his belief in Santa. Only scientists should discuss science , but scientists are experts in all fields? I have not heard such pejoratives hurled since the playground in 6th grade. Desertphile can’t seem to spit our a sentence without childish name-calling. If you gentlemen are as certain as you say, it would behoove you to present your case in an adult manner (can’t wait for this retort!).

  325. #325 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    You have insulted the gay community ….

    I insulted fags? Oh, I feel so badly about that! Will they still come and decorate my dining room fabulously?

  326. #326 Laws of Nature
    September 14, 2015

    Let’s also not forget, that all this name calling, self appointed expertise and references to other papers did not produce a need to change a single word in Brandon’s summary of Mann’s paper.. all these red herrings and yet it remains true, that Mann’s method was flawed.
    About the fraud aspect, I cite S. McIntyre 2005:
    http://climateaudit.org/?p=268http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=268http://www.climateaudit.org.?p=268
    “Mann has just(July 2005) archived a fortran program at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL98/METHODS/multiproxy.f.
    [..]The new source code shows how various statistics were calculated and definitely shows the correctness of our surmise that MBH calculated cross-validation R2 statistics and that these statistics were withheld, presumably because the cross-validation R2 statistics were adverse.”

    This withholding of information (which basically invalidates any conclusion drawn in MBH98) is scientific fraud.

  327. #327 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    Yet none of you is a lawyer ….

    What language are you trying to communicate in? Do you lack a first language—- you know, like Sarah Palin does?

    Two tort litigation judges already stated Dr. Mann’s suit not only has merit, but is “likely” (their word, not mine) to prevail. The libelers are evaiding and avoiding the legal sword using every trick they can think of, but their doom is inevitable. Sucks when victims fight back, eh?


    Desertphile can’t seem to spit our a sentence without childish name-calling.

    Anti-science conspiracy alarmists have zero sense of humor, which is why I love to make fun of you all: cutting wit is a sign of genius (something you know nothing about), and conspiracy alarmists “not getting the joke” is 90% of the entertainment.

  328. #328 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 14, 2015


    Let’s also not forget, that all this name calling….

    When a “name” (astute observation) is correct, it isn’t “name calling:” it’s correcting a mouth-breather when she or he is wrong, which is 99% of the time. Since you have fraudulently called Dr. Mann and his work “fraudulent,” that is an example of “name calling.” See the difference now? You’re welcome.

    We’re laughing at you. Make us stop……

  329. #329 Brainstorms
    September 14, 2015

    “This withholding of information (which basically invalidates any conclusion drawn in MBH98)” is a good example of a logical fallacy; its conclusion is invalid. [Try again!]

    “… is scientific fraud.” is a good example of distorting definitions of words to manipulate readers; this is a technique of propagandists. [Try again!]

  330. #330 RB perkinson
    September 14, 2015

    It was not necessary for you to make my point, but I assume you couldn’t resist.

  331. #331 Marco
    September 15, 2015

    Well, RB perkinson, then allow me to just ask you the simple question to show us where anyone here “pontificate[d] on law with the self assurance of the 6 year old and his belief in Santa”.

    No name calling here, just a simple request to show evidence. Desertphile already pointed out he merely repeated the legal opinion of two judges, which, rather than “pontificating” on law by Desertphile himself seems to be a referral to the actual legal experts.

  332. #332 Marco
    September 15, 2015

    LoN, why did you ignore my simple question? Again, if you believe not reporting something is fraudulent, surely you consider McIntyre’s criticism of MBH98/99 fraudulent? McIntyre did not report he used an extreme cherry pick.

    Of course, McIntyre’s mindreading is quite interesting, since previous attempts at mindreading didn’t quite work out for him. For example, he claimed to have been blocked on purpose from visiting his website at a certain airport. People tried (largely in vain it appears) to explain to him there were numerous potential reasons he could not get access, and his own website being deliberately blocked not being the most likely. He also claimed he was blocked from access to a GISS website, because, well, because it was he who was doing something. Again people tried, largely in vain it appears, to explain to him that it is extremely unlikely GISS knew it was him, and that it actually was his program’s actions that got him blocked. Not satisfied with faulty mindreading, McIntyre later accused Keith Briffa in court of hiding scientific misconduct, claiming Briffa was unwilling to publish a paper because he wanted to hide fraud. That claim did not fall well with the judge, who made it clear that claims of misconduct better be accompanied by evidence, which was sorely lacking. And then there is the famous story where McIntyre read the minds of several people at an IPCC meeting in Tanzania, claiming they thought Briffa’s Yamal data created a problem due to the divergence problem, dutifully followed by ‘evidence’ from an e-mail by Mike Mann. It again took not long before people pointed out that if you reinstalled the sections of the e-mail that McIntyre had removed…they clearly could not have been discussing the divergence problem, because the discussion was about Briffa’s reconstruction being *warmer* than the other two.

    Mindreading and Steve McIntyre = fail.

  333. #333 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 15, 2015


    Desertphile already pointed out he merely repeated the legal opinion of two judges, which, rather than ‘pontificating’ on law by Desertphile himself seems to be a referral to the actual legal experts.

    Indeed. The perpetrators (defendants) already asked the judges to dismiss the case as lacking in merit, on First Amendment grounds. Both judges agreed the First Amendment does not apply, as malice with intent to harm is “likely” to be demonstrated.

    The perpetrators (defendants) then asked the judges to dismiss the case as “we just wrote our opinions, in a public forum, about a public figure” on anti-SLAPP grounds. Both judges agreed the anti-SLAPP laws do not apply.

    No “pontification” is required here: just following Dr. Mann’s Facebook page and Twitter comments, and following the URLs to the court documents.

  334. #334 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 15, 2015

    “This withholding of information (which basically invalidates any conclusion drawn in MBH98)” is a good example of a logical fallacy; its conclusion is invalid. [Try again!]

    “… is scientific fraud.” is a good example of distorting definitions of words to manipulate readers; this is a technique of propagandists. [Try again!]

    The conspiracy alarmist cannot state what “withholding of information” has occurred, but by golly he just “knows it.” In the real world, where most of us live (I presume), no scientists who examined the issue found “fraud” (the claim of fraud itself is laughable), and the ice is still missing.

  335. #335 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 15, 2015


    It was not necessary for you to make my point, but I assume you couldn’t resist.

    Thank you, but I deserve none of the credit for pointing out your behavior: giants have come before me on the subject. A very comprehensive explanation is in the book “Engaging with Climate Change: Psychoanalytic and Interdisciplinary Perspectives” which one may find at

    http://www.amazon.com/Engaging-Climate-Change-Psychoanalytic-Interdisciplinary/dp/0415667623

  336. #336 StevoR
    Adelaide hills, South Australia
    September 15, 2015

    They’re withholding tehice! Oh noes!!!!eleventy

    Also they’ve forced the plants and animals to migrate earlier and even got the weather gods to shift spring and summer and get hotter more often and so on! Is there no limit to their powers!

    Oh & Gore has a time machine he went back to 19896 and impersonated this Svante Arr ..um ..are .hem .. something guy .. It was him , Gore Imean Big fat gay Al Gore swear I swear! By my tinfoil hat!

  337. #337 StevoR
    September 15, 2015

    The ice. Withholding the ice that is. (but not the typos, never hold back on them, sigh.)

    Y’know all that Arctic sea ice and all those glaciers globe ~wide which are melting away .. er .. that teh ebill scienty-whatsists are melting away, with magniftying glasses secretly and pretending its .. well .. scientific fact because .. um, yeah.

  338. #338 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 15, 2015


    Mindreading and Steve McIntyre = fail.

    If I recall correctly (which almost never happens, if ever, before my second cup of coffee in the morning), it was Steve McIntyre and a “peer” of his that simulated a half-dozen “hockey sticks” from a pseudo-random number generator to “prove” MBH98 and MBH99 are “random noise.” He showed us the six that most looked like hockey sticks, and didn’t show us the several thousand that did not. Was that him? Gods, professional deniers all start to look exactly the same.

    The six hockey sticks were fine examples of what Martin Gardner called “The Drunkard’s Walk” (which sounds better than Karl Pearson’s “random walk”). One can flip a coin many (many, many, many, many, many, many, many) times and produce a few “hockey sticks:” something everyone already knew, but which Steve McIntyre (if it was him) some how thought he should once again mention. One need merely keep track of the current end condition of the chaotic path taken in any series. The claim was that because six of the 5,000+ series looked like hockey sticks, therefore MBH98 and MBH99 were “random walks.”

    When I was at SNVTC I wrote a “simple” FORTRAN program (saved on punch cards) to find the most perfect behavior in playing Blackjack using the same technique McIntyre did: keep the successes, throw out the failures. The result was a list of behaviors humans should follow when playing Blackjack.

    Ah, fond memories….

  339. #339 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 15, 2015


    The ice. Withholding the ice that is. (but not the typos, never hold back on them, sigh.)

    Y’know all that Arctic sea ice and all those glaciers globe ~wide which are melting away .. er .. that teh ebill scienty-whatsists are melting away, with magniftying glasses secretly and pretending its .. well .. scientific fact because .. um, yeah.

    All of the planet’s ice (well, about 93% of it/them) are in on the conspiracy. That’s how powerful Dr. Mann is: he faked a graph, and the laws of physics complied.

  340. #340 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 15, 2015

    There is a huge difference between the court denying a pre-trial dispositive motion, and concluding Mann is “likely” to win. The issue of malice is a factual question for the jury to decide. The judge’s thought on whether Mann can meet his burden means nothing.

    By the way, looks like Mann better get read to sue Natalie Bjorklund Gordon, BsC, Ph.D. How dare she write a blog-post critical of Mann!

    http://embryogenesisexplained.org/2015/09/11/mann-made-global-warming-book-review-of-mark-steyns-disgrace-to-the-profession/

  341. #341 gary fraser
    Canada
    September 15, 2015

    So if Mann is right and Steyn is wrong – where are all the amicus briefs that should have been filed by Mann’s “friends” in court. Why hasn’t Mann produced in discovery? He’s the guy suing. Why the delay? What is Mann afraid of? Just because 100 scientists diss Mann in Steyn’s book “A Disgrace to the Profession” is no reason to be afraid. You’re an honoured Nobel Laureate. Go get ’em Mikey!!!! You have friends everywhere. They just lack confidence, I suspect.

  342. #342 Laws of Nature
    September 16, 2015

    Marco “Then what do you call McIntyre not informing anyone that the “examples” of hockeystick-like shapes, that he claimed Mann’s PCA procedure mined for, where a selection of the top-1% most extreme hockeystick shapes”

    Did you mean this statement by them (sorry, I thought you were just slinging mud again and didnt take it as a serious question, I apologize):

    “applying the MBH98 decentered PC method to trendless red noise with persistence properties of the North American tree ring network (modeled as fractional processes), in 10,000 simulations we found that the 1902–1980 mean differed from the 1400–1980 mean by more than 1σ over 99% of the time”

    I think, they described their pseudo-proxies accurately and you are yet again mistaken, but it nicely shows how wrong Mann’s method is, similar data mining procedures are used in quite a few of the papers cited by Greg!
    In any case it is a red herring like the citation of W&A, because even if questionable it still would not change the correctness of Brandon’s summary or the questionable behavior of Mann.

  343. #343 Marco
    September 16, 2015

    LoN, they showed the top 1% of the proxies, and *only* those that went in to upward direction. That’s the cherry pick that they did not disclose, and by *your own argumentation* equal fraud. See also: http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-steve-mcintyre-wont-show-you-now.html
    (since you are so enamored with blog comments)

    The claim that “similar data mining procedures are used in quite a few of the papers cited by Greg” is so wrong, it just shows that you are just parroting what others say and then interpret it further into your own desired direction.

  344. #344 Laws of Nature
    September 16, 2015

    Marco,
    they called this a sample and technical there is nothing wrong with it, beside it not being a representative sample, but I would agree that McIntyre seemed to have handled it poorly (beside I did not bother to read his reply for such a triviality), the fact remains that they showed that Mann’s method mines data. Here is one comment from the link you gave.
    _____

    AnonymousOctober 2, 2014 at 1:52 AM

    Anonymous, 10:57pm:
    perhaps you shoudl correct Ned who thinks that Wegman used a sample of 100 time series.

    To be crystal clear about what happened here:

    (1) M&M used a random process to generate 10,000 time series. Those 10,000 were the basis of the histogram in MM05 figure 2. Nobody is questioning that.

    (2) M&M then wrote code to weed through the 10,000 series and pull out only the 1% that were most hockey-stickish in appearance. Those 100 were posted with the Supplementary Information on the journal’s website. There was no explanation of the fact that this was a very highly biased sample (only the top 1%!) in either the paper or the README file with the SI. You can only figure it out if you work through the code.

    (3) Wegman then used this “sample” as the basis for his Figure 4.4, on the mistaken belief that it was a representative sample.

    OK, so far? That’s the past. Now for the present:

    (4) Nick and other commenters here point out that the process used to select the 100 time-series used in the SI for MM05 was strongly biased, and that the lack of any mention of this was problematic. (It obviously was misleading because Wegman, for one, was misled, and others who downloaded the 100 series from the journal’s website may also have mistakenly believed they were a “representative sample”)

    (5) McI posts a thread over at CA trying to shift the subject to Figure 2, which no one here had claimed was based on just the cherry-picked 100. Nick (and everyone else over here) has always been clear that *Figure 2* was based on all 10,000 series. What we were discussing was Wegman’s *Figure 4.4* and the MM05 archived set of 100 series that were the basis for it.

    (6) People dutifully troop over here from CA and accuse Nick of being wrong about MM05 Figure 2, because McIntyre told them Nick was talking about MM05 Figure 2.

    Anonymous, 11:58 pm:
    I’m still not clear whether M&M did more than poorly label their SI code and numbers – which it then appears Wegman mis-used

    That is the problem. MM05 didn’t mention (outside the actual code) that the “sample” of 100 series was the result of a selection process that weeded out everything except the 1% that most closely confirmed their point. Then Wegman used the 100 series as the basis for Figure 4.4, under the (reasonable) impression that what MM05 coyly described as “a sample” was in fact a representative sample rather than an extreme cherry-pick. If Wegman made that mistake, it’s likely that others did as well (including, er, … me …)

    The further problem is that rather than just admitting that he should have handled this differently in MM05 and moving on, McI is now busy misleading his CA readers about the nature of the dispute.

    Ned W
    ______

    Does that change anything about Brandon’s summary of Mann’s paper or the fact that Mann knew ahead of the publication that few dubious proxies are producing the hockey stick and choose not to discuss this? (If not, this is a red herring like I said):

  345. #345 Marco
    September 16, 2015

    LoN, thanks for implicitly admitting McIntyre committed fraud (at least in your own line of argumentation). A bit odd then that you keep on referring to him as some kind of authority in relation to W&A. And as W&A point out, those supposed problematic proxies are not the cause of the hockeystick shape. The North report found the same. That has a significant impact on what Brandon claims.

    Also, I already pointed that what Brandon claims does not automatically make it a “fact”. The only fact is that Brandon makes claims.

  346. #346 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 17, 2015


    There is a huge difference between the court denying a pre-trial dispositive motion, and concluding Mann is ‘likely’ to win.

    … except when both judges used the word when doing so. Your grade: F-


    The issue of malice is a factual question for the jury to decide. The judge’s thought on whether Mann can meet his burden means nothing.

    … except where the tort is decided by a judge, not a jury. Your grade: F-


    By the way, looks like Mann better get read to sue Natalie Bjorklund Gordon, BsC, Ph.D. How dare she write a blog-post critical of Mann!

    Dr. Mann has always, without exception, welcomed and solicited criticism. He has always graciously thanked his critics. Dr. Mann has never sued, nor threatened to sue, anyone who has criticized him. Your grade: F-

  347. #347 Marco
    September 17, 2015

    Desertphile: I don’t think Mann would welcome her criticism, since it is completely useless criticism. She is one of those “the science is not settled!” and “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming!” types.

    What no one has been able to do is to show the quotes that provide compelling evidence that Mann committed scientific misconduct and that the hockeystick is fraudulent. The vast majority of the quotes Steyn used do not even hint at scientific misconduct as an opinion held by the one quoted.

    That is, of course, rather inconvenient in a case where Steyn’s book is supposed to be some kind of support for Steyn calling Mann’s work fraudulent.

  348. #348 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 21, 2015

    Desertphile, I get it now. You are simply a troll who will say anything, no matter how absurd, to just to get people to argue. “Dr. Man has never sued, nor threatened to sue, anyone who as criticized him.” Really? Lets ask Mark Steyn or Tim Ball if Mann has sued anyone for disagreeing with him.

    Look, you can be forgiven, because unlike me, you don’t practice law, for not understanding what the court means “by likely” in early procedural motions. The court simply means that, if Mann proves what he alleges, he will likely win. It is not saying he is going to prove that, or even can prove that.

    In my jurisdiction, for example, virtually every civil lawsuit starts in arbitration. It is a non-binding program designed for cases with a jury value of under 50k. If the plaintiff thinks his case is worth more, he files a petition to exempt the case from arbitration, and the court will grant it if the “probable jury value” exceeds 50k. In making this decision, the court has to assume everything plaintiff alleges is true, and will be proven. The court is most assuredly not giving an opinion on the merits; rather, the court is saying “assuming plaintiff proves what he alleges, the verdict exceeds 50k.” I have had many cases where the court made that exact same ruling and the verdict came in under 50k (in some cases nothing).

    Same with Mann. The court simply ruled if he proves what he alleges, he will likely win. The court did not say Mann will, or even can prove.

    But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of a law professor at one the nation’s top law schools, who also happens to believe in global warming. yet, as he rightly notes, Mann will almost certainly lose. The last sentence is the best: “you can say almost anything you want about a public person, if you are dumb enough to believe it.”

    http://legal-planet.org/2013/09/16/lies-damned-lies-and-climate-denial/

  349. #349 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 21, 2015


    “Dr. Man has never sued, nor threatened to sue, anyone who as criticized him.” Really?

    Yes, really. Name just one person Dr. Mann has sued because they criticized him. Good luck with that.


    Lets ask Mark Steyn or Tim Ball if Mann has sued anyone for disagreeing with him.

    How the bloody hell would they know? Name just one person Dr. Mann has sued because they criticized him.

  350. #350 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 24, 2015

    Gee, I don’t know Desertphile. Is it possible Steyn knows because….wait for it….MANN SUED STEYN FOR CRITICIZING WITH HIM?

    I know this is a stretch, but work with me. Steyn publishes a blog post about Mann’s hockey stick graph, stating Mann cherry picked favorable data and ignored unfavorable data. Said post further states that Mann’s graph is, therefore, not reliable and that the “investigation” by Mann’s employer is likewise unreliable because Mann’s employer had a known (recent) history of whitewashing claims of misconduct against prominent faculty members. In other words, Steyn’s blog post….what’s the work I am looking for…..CRITICIZED Mann. Dr. Mann sued as a result.

    And please, spare us with any comments stating such absurdities as “Steyn didn’t criticize Mann, he defamed him.” All defamation, by its very nature, is critical. The issue in this case (and all defamation/libel cases, for that matter) is whether Steyn’s criticisms constituted legitimate speech protected by the First Amendment, or whether it was defamation/libel.

    As has been explained, many times by not only myself, but prominent legal scholar’s, Steyn’s post (no matter how crass it may have been) was legitimate debate protected by the First Amendment.

    Sorry to disappoint all you Mann-boys, but two things are abundantly clear: (1) Mann has no case, and (2) only sissies who lack the requisite Man-hood (pun intended) sue critics.

    I would say Dr. Mann should change his name to Dr. Wo-Mann, but that wouldn’t be fair to all the smart, courageous women in the world who are more than capable of handling a little criticism.

    By the way, check mate….

  351. #351 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 25, 2015

    “Gee, I don’t know Desertphile. Is it possible Steyn knows because….wait for it….MANN SUED STEYN FOR CRITICIZING WITH HIM?

    Do you have any evidence to support that extraordinary assertion? If so, please present it to Steyn: he desperately needs it.

  352. #352 Brainstorms
    September 25, 2015

    Are you saying that:

    A. Mann won’t be able to get a trial because he cannot sue for libel/defamation? or

    B. You are certain you know what the jury will decide?

  353. #353 Marco
    September 25, 2015

    Quite amazing, isn’t it, that Dan knows Mann has no case, despite the fact that two judges have already said he does…

  354. #354 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 26, 2015

    Brainstorms: That is a good question. What I am saying Mann’s case against Steyn depends upon him producing evidence during discovery which a jury could reasonably interpret as showing ALL of the following: Steyn knew his statements were false; Steyn made the comments for the sole purpose of malice (i.e., to maliciously injury Mann); and, that Mann actually incurred damages/injury as a result. If Mann cannot adduce evidence supporting each of these elements, the Court should grant summary judgment. And, if the court doesn’t and the jury rules in Mann’s favor, it will likely get overturned on appeal.

    So, to answer your question, I statement is correct; that Mann will not have enough evidence to get to a jury when discovery closes. However, knowing the judges are hesitant to issue summary judgment on factual questions, if it does get to a jury, I am also saying that if the jury rules for Mann, it will get overturned on appeal.

    Do you realize how difficult Mann’s burden is? Again, don’t take my word for it; take the work of the U of Cal Berkley law professor (and global warming proponent) who says Mann’s case is extremely difficult. He correctly states (paraphrasing) “you can say almost anything you want about a public person if you are dumb enough to believe it.” (Mann has already been determined to be a public person, which he clearly is).

    Thus, even if Mann can somehow prove Steyn doesn’t believe his hockey stick graph is fraudulent, he then has to show that his blog post was made purely for malicious reasons. Again, almost impossible to prove that.

    They only way I could Mann producing sufficient evidence during discovery is if Steyn did something like write a private email saying something to the effect of “Mann’s hockey stick graph is spot on, makes complete sense, and was based on sound scientific principles. But, I hate this Mann character so much, I am going to write a blog post saying he is fraud simply to try and hurt his credibility/career as an academic.”

    Why do you think Steyn wrote this latest book? It virtually eliminates the possibility that Mann can show Steyn didn’t reasonably believe his statements were true. If other scientists (some of whom are quite eminent), including proponents of global warming, say Mann cherry-picks data and bullies other scientists who disagree with him, it is certainly reasonable for a political commentator to hold that view and say as much.

  355. #355 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 26, 2015

    Marco: read my post above re: what the two judges meant when they ruled “Mann has a case.” Better yet, read the article by the UCal law professor and see what he says (hint: it is not what you think it means). All the judges ruling means is that allegations contained in Mann’s complaint are sufficient to permit discovery. Whether or not he discovers/produces enough evidence is a different matter all together.

    For example, if filed a complaint alleging “Marco paid for my coffee at Starbucks on 09/25/15,” the court would rightly dismiss that before discovery because there is no recognized cause of action for buying someone coffee at Starbucks; therefore, it is not worth the court’s or the litigants’ time and money to pursue discovery.

    On the other hand, if I file a complaint alleging “Marco negligently operated his vehicle and rear-ended me in Las Vegas on 09/25/15” Marco could file a motion to dismiss early in the case saying he wasn’t in Las Vegas on that day, wasn’t driving a car, and wasn’t in an accident.

    However, the Court would deny his MOTION TO DISMISS because, since my complaint contains allegations, which if true, would entitle me to recover, I am allowed to proceed with discovery. I could take Marco’s deposition, request documents showing he was indeed in Las Vegas; produce a police report showing he rear-ended me, etc.

    Of course, Marco could also conduct discovery, and take my deposition, along with people who saw him in whatever town, show receipts of him purchasing things in another town, etc. That, coupled with the fact that, when I request a police report, none will exist (and Marco could likewise produce an affidavit from a custodian of records from the Las Vegas police saying no report exists with his name on it), Marco could then file a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT stating that, based on the evidence or lack thereof, no reasonable jury could find in my favor.

    The court would likely grant Marco’s motion; and, if it didn’t and the jury came back in my favor, he would have a issues which would likely be successful on appeal.

    Steyn’s situation is almost exactly the same as Marco’s in the second scenario (automobile accident), and will likely succeed on summary judgment.

  356. #356 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 26, 2015

    Desertphile: Do you seriously deny that Mann sued Steyn? Thanks for proving my point that you are a troll.

    On a more serious issue, I can’t help but wonder why you guys are so emotionally invested in Mann’s case? I am not emotionally invested in Steyn; I am emotionally invested in free speech because it is the foundation of any free society.

    Do you really want to live in a society in which you can get sued simply for stating something that goes against “the consensus” and “what 97% of scientists say (assuming that is true, of course)? Isn’t history replete with situations, including scientific situations, in which an issue was “settled,” but a few people said otherwise and were later determined to be correct. Galileo comes to mind.

    Do you really want to live in a society where you can be sued just for being wrong? To this very day, a flat earth society exists. There are actually people who think the earth is flat, and that Anartica is really an Ice-Wall. They accuse governments and space agencies with one-big conspiracy to hide the truth, and believe all those GPS maps on planes and in cars are meant to fool us sheeple.

    Obviously, they are nuts, but do you want to live in a society where they can be sued for saying those things? In addition to pure comedic value, isn’t society better off with free debate. And, if free debate sometimes leads to people making crass jokes/statements/satire, isn’t that well worth it?

    Larry Flynt published an article and cartoons stating Jerry Falwell was a sexual deviant in the worst possible way. Supreme Court held Falwell didn’t have a case. Interestingly, Flynt knew those statements were false, but the Court held they were legitimate use of satire to make a political point, and were therefore not made maliciously.

    Whatever you think of Steyn’s global warming views , he is one of the biggest champions of free speech the world has seen in the past half-century. Today, for example, he is in Denmark at a conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the Muhammed cartoons. Steyn is there because he (rightly) thinks it is abhorrent that certain segments of society kill and maim others simply for making cartoons they don’t like, or for making political statements they disagree with.

    And guess what? The conference had to be moved due to threats of violence against. Steyn has had numerous death threats against in the name of free speech. We should all respect that.

    Would you be willing to put your life on the line for something you believe in?

  357. #357 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 27, 2015

    “Desertphile: Do you seriously deny that Mann sued Steyn?”

    Idiot.

  358. #358 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 27, 2015

    “What I am saying Mann’s case against Steyn depends upon him producing evidence during discovery ….”

    Good bloody grief. Are you really that ignorant about what “discovery” means, and whom that burden rests upon? Really? Or are you just pretending to be that stupid? Seriously, I would love to know.

  359. #359 Aubrey
    London
    September 27, 2015

    The Larry Flynt case was about satire; if Hustler had published a statement to the effect that Falwell had actually had sex with his mother in an outside toilet the outcome would have been different. Steyn did not intend any of his statements as satire.

    You can say that you think someone is wrong, but you can’t say their work is fraudulent.

  360. #360 Laws of Nature
    September 27, 2015

    re #357: I would not call him that! While clearly it was not his smartest move to sue someone who just plays in a different league and a different sport, it requires some rotten cleverness to hide opposing data and develop an improper method using faulty data, make a career out of it and “almost” win a nobel price.

    By the way, who is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who follows the fool?

  361. #361 Marco
    September 27, 2015

    Dan’s reference to the Falwell-Flynt case is interesting, because the Supreme Court stated that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims. Can Steyn come with the same defense? Clearly not, or he would have already argued this. Strike 1.

    “And guess what? The conference had to be moved due to threats of violence against”

    No it wasn’t. It took place right where it was supposed to take place. At Christiansborg. Strike 2.

    “Would you be willing to put your life on the line for something you believe in?”

    Mann has had threats against his life. I am sure you will now offer him your respect. Right? If not, strike 3.

  362. #362 Stuart
    Australia
    September 27, 2015

    I literally cannot wait for the conclusion of this case. I’m not ashamed to say I will be pouring over this thread to compare predictions and reality.

    I’m also interested to hear what the CGW crowd think of using the RICO act to prosecute those who would promote material countering accepted warming science.

  363. #363 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 27, 2015

    “I’m also interested to hear what the CGW “

    The what crowd? Huh?

    “crowd think of using the RICO act to prosecute those who would promote material countering accepted warming science”

    The what science?

  364. #364 Brainstorms
    September 27, 2015

    The RICO statute cannot be used to prosecute anyone for simply promoting material, as you suggest. RICO in this case would be used to bring justice to those who are knowingly providing false testimony in order to block, prevent, or derail actions needed to prevent the economic damage due to AGW. It’s similar to the application against the tobacco industry.

  365. #365 Marco
    September 27, 2015

    What is it with the dismissives and their confident ignorance? This time it is RICO that is not understood.

  366. #366 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 27, 2015

    “What is it with the dismissives and their confident ignorance? This time it is RICO that is not understood.”

    They do understand; they just pretend to be morons, for political reasons and to waste the time of sane people. Best to ignore them.

  367. #367 Brainstorms
    September 27, 2015

    Wait… Why don’t we prosecute them under RICO for knowingly & fraudulently perpetrating a racket intended to waste people’s time, money, and national resources?

  368. #368 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 27, 2015

    “Wait… Why don’t we prosecute them under RICO for knowingly & fraudulently perpetrating a racket intended to waste people’s time, money, and national resources?”

    That would put 99% of USA citizens in prison.

  369. #369 Brainstorms
    September 27, 2015

    Gee, not if we just fine them…

  370. #370 Stuart
    Australia
    September 27, 2015

    I guess that clears that up then.

    To me, the vagueness of the proposed use of RICO laws contained within the petition betrays its true intentions. The signatories (and clearly a number of you) want to wield Government as a tool, or at least a threat, to silence people with contrary views.

    Like it or not, most moronic, unscientific and uneducated droolers like me see something like that and detect a distinct odour of fish.

  371. #371 Brainstorms
    September 27, 2015

    Ya know Stuart, when someone gets in my face and threatens to breaks into my house, steal my stuff, rape my wife, burn the place down, I kinda, sorta, REALLY do want to “wield Government as a tool, or at least a threat, to silence” them — and their “contrary views” to my position on that subject.

    We’re talking about people who are committing a crime Stuart, not merely “people with contrary views.”

    You’re free to be contrary, just as the average nicotine addict is free to spout off about why he thinks smoking cigarettes will not harm him.

    The Tobacco Industry, on the other hand, is culpable when they hide, lie about, misrepresent, etc. research on the subject, give false testimony, etc. in order to convince the public and the government that their position on the subject (risky? no!) is correct so that they can continue selling their product — at the public’s expense.

    If you admit to being a drooler, so be it.

  372. #372 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 28, 2015

    Aubrey: I have consistently clear (see prior posts) that the Larry Flynt case is not an exact analogy; but the general premise that, in order to defame a public person, the statements must be knowingly false and maliciously made. That general principal applies to Steyn. And, no, the case would not have been different if Flynt had made the statements that Falwell had sex with his mother if Flynt honestly and truly believed them to be true. Since he didn’t believe them to be true, the court went to the second prong of the test, and concluded satire, not malicious, was the intent behind the comments.

    In the Steyn/Mann case, you don’t even have to get to the second prong, because Steyn honestly and reasonably believes them. And yes, you can call someone fraudulent. You keep thinking “fraud” only means criminal fraud. Fraud can also mean reference dishonestly, deception, ill-gotten, etc. So, when Steyn says Mann’s graph was “fraudulent,” he simply means that Mann used cherry-picked data in order to get a result he desired, and ignored data that would tend to support a non-desired outcome, and tried to silence dissent.

    Again (for the umpteenth time), it does not matter if Mann cherry picked his data, thus leading to a fraudulent result. The only thing that matters, for the first prong, is whether Steyn honestly believes it.

    Why do you think he published this book? Here, a number of eminent scientists who say the same thing. If these scientists, some of whom are extremely well-credentialed, believe Mann’s methods are suspect, it is certainly reasonable for a lay person to think so.

    Aubrey (I am not sure if you are from London, Ontario, or London, UK, but either way, commonwealth nations have a very different defamation standard than the United States), I encourage you to read the article I linked to by the UC-Berkley professor, who rightly said (paraphrasing) that you can “say almost anything you want about a public person if you are stupid enough to believe it.”

    Note: we haven’t even touched the second, or malice prong. Steyn merely has to say he didn’t make those statements to hurt Mann personally, but because he thinks the hockey-stick graph is wrong, developed by ill-gotten means, and was making the political point that countries shouldn’t enact environmental legislation increasing regulation, carbon-taxes, etc., that will increase the cost of doing business, which will result in loss of jobs, fewer jobs created, increase in the price of goods, etc, based on this graph.

    You can disagree with Steyn; you can disagree with the way he phrased his blog. But, you cannot say what he said is not constitutionally protected free speech.

    And, please, spare me the “but, but, but two judges said it was defamation!!!” No, they merely said Mann can pursue discovery to try and procure and produce evidence showing Steyn maliciously and knowingly made false statements.

    Good luck with that…

  373. #373 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 28, 2015

    Desertphile: No, your not an idiot. Misguided, perhaps, but not an idiot. No need to sign your posts as such. And, please do enlighten me what, exactly is the purpose of discovery?

    Silly me, after more then a decade of practicing civil law, including over a dozen trials to verdict and two cases in before the Nevada Supreme Court, I was silly enough to think the point of discovery is to “discovery” facts which that either support your burden of proof, or contests your opponents burden of proof, for the purpose of introducing said facts into evidence at trial.

    Also, again silly me, I thought Mann had the burden of proof, as he is the plaintiff and alleges defamation (except, of course, regarding the Steyn’s counter-claims and/or affirmative defenses, in which he has the burden).

  374. #374 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 28, 2015

    “Desertphile: No, your not an idiot. Misguided, perhaps, but not an idiot”

    Idiot.

  375. #375 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    September 29, 2015

    Dan,

    Again (for the umpteenth time), it does not matter if Mann cherry picked his data, thus leading to a fraudulent result. The only thing that matters, for the first prong, is whether Steyn honestly believes it.

    You are wrong. As I said in a previous comment on this post:

    Even if Steyn truly believes that Mann is a fraud, that doesn’t shield him. If he acted with malice (which has a different definition in law than it does in normal discourse), then he will lose, no matter how genuine his convictions.

    The evidence points to Steyn acting with a reckless disregard for the truth. It doesn’t matter how fervently he believes Mann is a liar or even if he shows his belief is genuine. He acted with malice.

  376. #376 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 29, 2015

    Julian,

    Actually, I am not wrong. It absolutely matters whether or Steyn thought his statements were true. It also matters whether or not Steyn’s statements were made maliciously. I could provide numerous cites in support (and other cites have been provided above by other commentators stating the legal definition of defamation). Suffice to say, I will rely on the article published the UCal law professor, who (again) states that people can say whatever they want about a public figure, as long as the believe it is true.

    Can you provide ANY support for your (clearly erroneous) contention that it does not matter “how fervently” Steyn believed his statements?

    I will save you the time and trouble: you won’t find any legal authority in support of your position, because none exists.

    Jeez, man, give it up already. Legal scholars say you are wrong. Binding Supreme Court precedent says you are wrong. Mann’s case will only succeed if, during discovery, he can find evidence showing Steyn knew his statements were false (an impossible task, in light of Steyn’ recent book), and that malice was the sole motive behind Steyn’s comments (also an impossible task).

    Why don’t you guys focus on winning in the Court of Public Opinion?

  377. #377 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    September 30, 2015

    Dan:

    I am not wrong. It absolutely matters whether or Steyn thought his statements were true. It also matters whether or not Steyn’s statements were made maliciously.

    You ARE wrong.

    While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.”

    http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153
    Steyn’s labeling of the Hockey Stick as “fraudulent” meets this test. Two courts have already ruled that it does.
    It does not matter how fervently Steyn believes that Mann committed fraud. His remarks reach the level of malice.

  378. #378 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 30, 2015

    “The evidence points to Steyn acting with a reckless disregard for the truth. It doesn’t matter how fervently he believes Mann is a liar or even if he shows his belief is genuine. He acted with malice.”

    Well, National Review and Stein really are not the morons they insist they are: they do not believe Dr. Mann “tortured the data” or in any way committed any academic fraud; it takes an actual idiot to believe that.

  379. #379 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 30, 2015

    “Actually, I am not wrong. It absolutely matters whether or Steyn thought his statements were true.”

    Er… then why does the USA tort litigation laws state otherwise? It does not matter if NA and/or Steyn really are the ignorant morons they insist they are: it only matters that their assertions are published, false, injurious, unprivileged, and (in the USA) made with malice. As you already know, the judge has already stated Dr. Mann is likely to demonstrate these conditions are true. What the liars believed and believe is not relevant.

  380. #380 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 30, 2015

    Desertphile: As usual, you provide no citations or authority to back up your claim. Also, you unwittingly prove my point when acknowledging the statements must be made “with malice” because malice presumes intent. Indeed, the definition of malice is the “intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification…”

    See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malice

    Do, pray tell, explain how Steyn could have “intentionally” made false comments about Mann if he honestly believed them to be true. Even someone of limited intellectual capabilities should be able to grasp the basic concept that if one honestly believes a statement to be true, then, by definition, then statements cannot be made with malice.

    The site referenced above has a good explanatory paragraph re: malice in the 1st Amendment context. Citing New York Times v. Sullivan, the article correctly notes that, in order to be held liable for defamation, the person accused must have made the statements with knowledge they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

    Which, again, brings us back to Steyn’s instant book, which is only the first volume, citing numerous eminent scientists who back up Steyn’s comments. A layperson agreeing with one scientist instead of another scientist cannot be considered “reckless disregard for the truth.”

    Try Again. Next time with cites Oh yeah, that’s right. You can’t include cites because none exist to support your ignorant statement. Don’t you have a tent to pitch, or horses that need shoeing, because I am sure you don’t live in a house with electricity, plumbing, etc., or drive a car given the imminent threat of man-made “global war….” I mean “climate change”

  381. #381 Dan
    Las Vegas
    September 30, 2015

    Obviously, Desertphile, the concept of a metaphor is beyond your level of understanding. I mean, can data really be tortured? Do you think Steyn meant to say Mann had the data hanged, drawn and quartered?

    It was simply a metaphor (you know, a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action which it is not literally applicable). Steyn specifically walked back the Sandusky comparison, saying he “would not extend the metaphor all the way to the locker room showers,” but the metaphor about “torturing data” simply meant that Mann twisted it to serve his own ends.

    You can agree or disagree with that. But it is protected First Amendment Speech.

    Also, riddle me this: If Mann has such a great case against Steyn, why is he delaying it? Steyn is on record as wanting to bifurcate his case from the Anti-Slapp appeal, and proceed directly to trial with Mann. Mann wanted Steyn’s case stayed while the Anti-Slapp issues (of which Steyn is not a party to) resolved.

    This is litigation 101 (try and follow me here): parties with strong cases want to get in front of a jury as quickly as possible. Parties with a weak case seek to stall and delay in the hopes that the party with the strong case (i.e., the opposing party, or Steyn, in this case) get fed up with the process, they can no longer afford attorneys’ fees, etc.

  382. #382 Brainstorms
    September 30, 2015

    Do, pray tell, explain how Steyn could prove that he honestly believed any of his public statements to be true, when such is rather easily faked. (Witness the numbers of people who believe him; he’s a good actor.)

    Ergo, if Steyn is putting on an act about believing what he’s been saying, then his statements can be made with malice. Which bring him legal exposure.

    Steyn did know his statements were false; that’s the nature of the conflict, and given that the truth was readily available (and apparent to those not supporting Steyn), he was reckless in his disregard of the truth.

    Publishing his little book after the fact smacks of further attempts at white-washing his position to avoid conviction. I think a jury would be more impressed if Steyn had the foresight to publish before his libelous claims.

    Can anyone say how the jury will decide? I’m a third-party observer to all this, and as a juror, it’s not so cut-and-dried as Dan wants to make it out to be. (The jury isn’t going to consists of 12 seasoned defense lawyers who will split legal hairs in the deliberation room to let Steyn off the hook.)

  383. #383 Obstreperous Applesauce
    September 30, 2015

    Here’s the thing, Dan. This discussion is pretty much a waste of time. I mean for sure, there will be plenty enough to argue about after the trial. Nevertheless, you come here with an agenda arguing from authority (a dubious practice to begin with), but you don’t identify yourself so that we can at least verify the source. And ironically, although you have zero scientific expertise, you’re willing to make authoritative assertions about the merits of the science.

    Basically you arrive here tarted up in what appears to be lawyer drag and start bating people. That’s not to say that this all couldn’t be entertaining, enlightening even… maybe if actual lawyers showed up to agree or disagree (disagree is better–adversarial lawyer stuff, you know). But to all appearances, talented lawyers have better things to do with their time than come here and answer to your verbal twerkings. 

    And that, my friend, makes me wonder: Why aren’t you out chasing ambulances or defiling some poor judge’s chambers, instead of making a nuisance of yourself here?

  384. #384 Marco
    September 30, 2015

    “If Mann has such a great case against Steyn, why is he delaying it?”

    If you have such legal expertise as you claim you have, you should have no problem answering this yourself. Hint: Mark Steyn published on the NR blog, which is also a defendant in this case.

    “Parties with a weak case seek to stall and delay”.

    So you are saying that CEI and NR have a weak case? After all, they stalled and delayed by repeatedly asking for the case to be dismissed. If they had such a strong case, they could already be in court.

    “But it is protected First Amendment Speech”

    Let’s see what the judge said to the CEI, shall we?
    “There is sufficient evidence presented that is indicative of “actual malice.” The CEI Defendants have consistently accused Plaintiff of fraud and inaccurate theories, despite Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper.”
    Followed a little bit later by:
    “Thus, given the evidence presented the Court finds that Plaintiff could prove “actual malice”.”

    Granted, this is regarding the CEI, and the first judge indicated that this was not as clear for the NR (and thus Steyn), but then said that there was “sufficient evidence to find that further discovery may uncover evidence of ‘actual malice’.”

    Steyn’s book would make fun evidence in the case if he were to present it, as any competent lawyer will ask Steyn to provide evidence that he knew all these quotes before he discussed Mann in his column.

  385. #385 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 30, 2015

    “Steyn’s labeling of the Hockey Stick as “fraudulent” meets this test. Two courts have already ruled that it does.
    It does not matter how fervently Steyn believes that Mann committed fraud. His remarks reach the level of malice.”

    The evidence suggests that the defendants think Dr. Mann is likely to prevail in the litigation: the defendants are evading and avoiding the conclusion to the law suit with every clever means they and their lawyers can think of. I wonder when the defendants’ lawyers told their clients to settle the suit.

    There is no way the defendants will let the case be decided by a judge or jury.

  386. #386 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 30, 2015

    “Desertphile: As usual, you provide no citations or authority to back up your claim”

    I am a skeptic: everything I write has been researched and vetted.

    Meanwhile, you are the one who insists observed reality is wrong. Libel occurs regardless of if the person doing the libel believes it is true or not.

  387. #387 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 30, 2015

    “Obviously, Desertphile, the concept of a metaphor is beyond your level of understanding. I mean, can data really be tortured?”

    Two judges already ruled on that. Your cult pals already lost. Stings, does it? May I suggest you put some ice on it?

  388. #388 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 30, 2015

    “Do, pray tell, explain how Steyn could prove that he honestly believed any of his public statements to be true, when such is rather easily faked. (Witness the numbers of people who believe him; he’s a good actor.)”

    That is why the USA defamation laws state belief in libel is not relevant: it makes zero difference whether National Review and/or Steyn believed their false and malicious statements are or were true: the courts don’t even consider that issue.

  389. #389 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    September 30, 2015

    “Basically you arrive here tarted up in what appears to be lawyer drag and start bating people.”

    “Lawyer drag” is good. Here is an extract from

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

    What the victim must prove to establish that defamation occurred

    The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been “defamed,” to prove it you usually have to show there’s been a statement that is all of the following:

    . published
    . false
    . injurious
    . unprivileged

    Let’s look at each of these elements in detail.

    1. First, the “statement” can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.

    2. “Published” means that a third party heard or saw the statement — that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. “Published” doesn’t necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book — it just needs to have been made public through television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.

    3. A defamatory statement must be false — otherwise it’s not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don’t count as defamation because they can’t be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, “That was the worst book I’ve read all year,” she’s not defaming the author, because the statement can’t be proven to be false.

    4. The statement must be “injurious.” Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement — for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won’t collect much in a defamation suit.

    5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be “unprivileged.” Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can’t be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered “privileged,” free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themsleves also enjoy this privilege: They aren’t liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.

  390. #390 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 8, 2015

    Marco: No, I don’t think NR and CEI have a weak case, and they are actively the appeal of the denial of their Anti-Slapp motion. That is not delay; appeal take a long time (the average appeal in Nevada takes 3 years). It is a fact that Steyn offered to bifurcate his case with the co-defendants, so Mann could proceed directly against him. Steyn even responded to Mann’s discovery.

    And, to whoever asked how will Steyn prove it wasn’t malice; Steyn doesn’t have to. The burden of proof lies with Mann; not Steyn.

    Look, if it will shut you girls up, I will be happy to identify myself. My Nevada Bar No. is 9591; you can go to http://www.nvbar.org and go from there. It probably won’t shut you guys up, because if you wont take the word of a known legal scholar/professor (which I have linked to many times), I wouldn’t expect you to take mine for it.

  391. #391 Marco
    October 9, 2015

    Dan, you claimed that people who delay have a weak case. NR and CEI are appealing, which *of course* means a delay, and if they had such a great case, they would not. Your argument. Not mine. Now you deny that this holds.

    You also keep on claiming Mann has a weak case because of a scholar’s legal opinion and your own, but completely and utterly ignore that two different judges have stated Mann has a clear case (at the very least in the case of CEI). If he had such a weak case, why did two different judges state the opposite?

    Be honest, Dan, how many times have you lost a case or had to settle for a very much watered down settlement, even though you believed the opposition had a “weak case”? I know a few legal scholars who were certain King V Burwell would mean the end of Obamacare. Didn’t quite work out that way…

  392. #392 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    October 9, 2015

    Dan:

    And, to whoever asked how will Steyn prove it wasn’t malice; Steyn doesn’t have to. The burden of proof lies with Mann; not Steyn.

    Not entirely accurate. As I quoted above:

    Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.

    Steyn made various claims that were so vicious that malice is assumed.
    Further:

    In order to be held liable for defamation, the person accused must have made the statements with knowledge they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

    The legal definition of malice includes “reckless disregard for the truth”. The simple fact is, there was ample evidence that Mann did not “torture and molest” the data, but Steyn failed to check. That means he acted with “reckless disregard for the truth”, which ipso facto means he acted with malice.

  393. #393 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 9, 2015

    “The legal definition of malice includes “reckless disregard for the truth”. The simple fact is, there was ample evidence that Mann did not “torture and molest” the data, but Steyn failed to check. That means he acted with “reckless disregard for the truth”, which ipso facto means he acted with malice.”

    There is also the “competent person” issue: USA law assumes that adults know what is true and what is false (scary, that, because it is wrong: but the law assumes it) such as knowing the day’s date; knowing what state and county one lives in; knowing actions and inactions can and will result in harm to oneself and others. In law suits regarding defamation, libel, and slander, the law assumes the defendants knew their claims were false when they made them. In the tort in question, no one is required to show that the defendants knew their falsehoods are false: it is only required to show the falsehoods are false, which Dr. Mann and many scores of scientists have already done.

    If the defendants didn’t know they were lying, t hat means they are morons.

  394. #394 Gary Fraser
    California
    October 9, 2015

    Mann’s unwillingness to move this case along has given Steyn a huge advantage in that the book he wrote – Disgrace to the Profession – has made Mann look like a fool (which he is). That there are NO amicus briefs filed anywhere in support of Mann, and so many filed in support of Steyn gives one some idea of the public direction. Mann is done like toast. And he and the rest of the twisted AGW crowd deserve it for promoting these frauds.

  395. #395 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 9, 2015

    “Mann’s unwillingness to move this case along ….”

    Er, I assume you mean CEI’s unwillingness. Dr. Mann is ready to have the judge rule now, today, this instant.

  396. #396 dean
    October 9, 2015

    I assume you mean CEI’s unwillingness. …

    Given he said
    has made Mann look like a fool (which he is). That there are NO amicus briefs filed anywhere in support of Mann, and so many filed in support of Steyn gives one some idea of the public direction. Mann is done like toast. And he and the rest of the twisted AGW crowd deserve it for promoting these frauds.
    – apparently seriously, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts he did mean the bit you quoted.

  397. #397 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 9, 2015

    Desertphile: You are absolutely may be right, in that if the Defendants didn’t know they were lying, they were morons. As the law prof states: you can say anything you want ABOUT A PUBLIC PERSON if you are dumb enough to believe. Just like you can’t fix stupid; being stupid is not illegal in a criminal or civil context.

    As I have said, I don’t know who is factually right: Mann or Steyn. I will leave that debate up to you good folks who know much more about science than I do. What I do know is he has every right to say what he said.

    All those laws you cite apply to private persons. There is a world of difference in libel law between public and private persons, as we have discussed.

  398. #398 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 9, 2015

    Desertphile, if Mann is ready to have the judge rule today, this instant, why didn’t he accept Steyn’s offer to bifurcate Mann’s case against him from the other defendants? Why did he seek an order from the court that he didn’t have to respond to Steyns discovery while the other D’s anti-slap issues are appealed?

    If he truly wants the case resolved “this instant,” the best thing he can do is respond to Steyn’s written discovery, then appear for deposition. Steyn has responded to Mann’s written discovery (and did so immediately, without even asking for a two week extension, which is common even in rinky-dink personal injury cases)

  399. #399 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 9, 2015

    Dean @ 396

    Wow! That is messed up on so many levels, I don’t even know where to begin. And just as I was about to start showing you a little more respect…

    Look, little of what you have said here is edifying and none of it is particularly convincing. At the very least, you have done a really poor job of reading the audience on this thread.

    You can handicap this lawsuit like a horse race all you want and get yourself all worked up over it, but it’s just not moving the discussion forward: Like resuscitating this thread in order to tell people to shut up when it’s just about dead anyway. If I had to guess, I’d say you’re probably one of those rabid sports-fans who’s always running around yelling and picking fights. Frankly, I think your time would be better spent acquiring some essential scientific literacy.

  400. #400 dean
    October 9, 2015

    @397:
    Saying he meant the part about Mann looking like a fool missed something? I didn’t say I agreed with him.
    I’m not sure what the objection with that comment is. (Leave the others for now, just that one.)

  401. #401 Brainstorms
    October 9, 2015

    Dean, your attempt at quoting Gary Fraser was rather confusing. You got me at first, and, apparently, OA as well.

    Maybe a good idea to use the and tagging technique…?

  402. #402 dean
    October 9, 2015

    I see – missed that. I was posting from my phone, which is not an excuse but a fact. It that’s the problem with my 396 I apologize.

  403. #403 Brainstorms
    October 9, 2015

    Interesting. Tags suck altogether, even if they prove necessary for clarity. (Why can the blog site allow GUI editing??)

    Maybe a good idea to use:
    left-bracket-i-right-bracket,
    left-bracket-/i-right-bracket,
    left-bracket-b-right-bracket,
    left-bracket-/b-right-bracket.

    And I don’t know how Desertphile creates indents… That would be even more useful…

  404. #404 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 9, 2015

    Dean, sorry.

    I totally misread your name and your comment.

    Bad hair day for me. I think I’d better give it a rest.

    Again, sorry.

  405. #405 Brainstorms
    October 9, 2015

    Wouldn’t it be grand if the deniers could so politely recognize their errors of cognition…

    Ha ha. Battle on!

  406. #406 dean
    October 9, 2015

    @404:
    No concerns: thank you for your explanation.
    Brainstorms was far too polite in explaining how my post sucked in formatting and writing, and my intent wasn’t clear at all. I made a decision to not blockquote because it’s a pain on a phone keyboard, and learned a lesson.

  407. #407 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 9, 2015

    Thanks, Dean and Brainstorms. You are both very generous.

    And I hate to admit it but I probably owe an apology to Dan as well, since he was the one I was aiming at even though he hadn’t earned that particular attack. So, sorry Dan.

  408. #408 Brainstorms
    October 9, 2015

    How far technology has come in making our lives comfortable…

    …and how far it has yet to go for such simple things, too.

    We appreciate your politeness, too, guys. Would that all the discourse on this blog site were such, but it’s also the most civil blog site (with controversial subjects) that I’ve seen.

    …which is why I hang around here. (The politeness and the interesting technical/controversial subject matter.) Thanks, Greg!

  409. #409 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 9, 2015

    No worries, Obstreperous. I am actually enjoying this discussion. Sure, sometimes most of us get close to crossing the line of inappropriateness, but (with maybe one or two exceptions), I don’t think anyone has.

    Global warming is an issue that many people are passionate about. I get that. For me, free speech is an issue I am passionate about. I truly believe it is absolutely necessary in a free a vibrant democracy.

    Let’s use politics as an example. If public figures were aloud to sue, we wouldn’t have a media. Going back just in the last decade or so, think of all the stories in the media that turned out false (John Kerry had an affair with a staffer; McCain had an affair with a staffer, the W. Bush national guard docs). Society is better of with a vibrant media vigorously debating the topics of the day. Vibrancy leads to passion, passion leads to making statements that either come close or actually do go to far. It is a small price to pay…

  410. #410 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 9, 2015

    “Given he said
    (RE-QUOTE)
    has made Mann look like a fool (which he is). That there are NO amicus briefs filed anywhere in support of Mann, and so many filed in support of Steyn gives one some idea ….”

    The cult does not know there is no such things as “amicus briefs:” they are too stupid, too lazy, and too brainwashed to study the subject.

    As for amicus curiae, filing one with the court in libel suits (tort litigation) is not unprecedented, but it is stupid, asinine, a waste of everyone’s time, and pointless. Libel suits are overwhelmingly prima facie, where the defendants have already produced all necessary evidence their victims have the burden to produce.

    What the bloody hell do these cultists believe amicus curiae briefs would tell the judge. “Golly, Judge, lying to harm people is wrong, and against the law! {signature}” The judge already knows everything she needs to know about the victim’s legal position in a libel suit: the perpetrators have already produced it.

    Seriously, I wish some cultist would step forward and state what a amicus curiae brief in defense of the victim (Dr. Mann) would say, that would not make the judge boggle at the stupidity of someone having filed it. What amicus curiae brief, filed in defense of Dr. Mann’s tort, would not insult the judge’s intelligence?

    Cultists are crowing with smug triumph over the fact that no amicus curiae have been filed on Dr. Mann’s side.They are too stupid to understand why.

    An analogy, perhaps: let us suppose that Donald Trump walked over to Ted Cruz and punched Criz in the face, stating he, Trump, has the religious right and duty to punch people born in Cuba in the face. The battery, let us also suppose, was video taped by dozens of news media outlets, and shown to tens of millions of people.

    At the trial, Trump’s defense produces fifty amicus curiae briefs from people who insist it is a USA citizen’s religious right, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to punch people born in Cuba in the face.

    To then end the analogy and project it into the real world— just what do denial / “free market” conspiracy cultists believe any amicus curiae brief filed on the side of the victim, Ted Cruz, would say that would not insult the judge?

  411. #411 Marco
    October 10, 2015

    “why didn’t he accept Steyn’s offer to bifurcate Mann’s case against him from the other defendants”

    You are a lawyer, Dan. You should be able to answer that question yourself. Would you seriously advice your client to bifurcate this case? And if you would, do you think the other defendants would not challenge this?

    Also, I see you unsurprisingly ignoring my previous questions. Somehow you argue the opinion of the law professor is, well, the end to all discussion. Why? What makes you completely ignore your years of education as a lawyer? After all, if it all were so simple (one legal opinion is enough), you’d know that no appeal would ever matter. You’d expect Supreme Court decisions to be 9-0. You’d not be able to find any law professors who think Obamacare is illegal, or vice versa, none who think it is legal. Etc. Etc. Etc. After all, one legal opinion is the only one you need, because every all legal professionals will think the same.

  412. #412 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 10, 2015

    Paging GREG LADEN here (I did not find an email address).

    Want to see something very amusing? It’s a “paper” written by an economi9cs student that states human-produced CO2 is not turning the world’s oceans less base (i.e., nor acidic).

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669930

    Because, by golly, everyone knows double-entry bookkeeping trumps actual measurements.

  413. #413 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 10, 2015

    Dan,

    Thanks, I appreciate that.

    And I get the free speech thing, but…

    When this business wraps up, I’ll be looking at a couple of things. One is the simple matter of whether Mann prevails, but more particularly how the court handles contemporary and emerging issues of social media. So for instance, Mann is a public person, but is that really appropriate? And there’s the market place of ideas, but there’s also modern propaganda– which is not your father’s quaint, old, funky propaganda. And so on.

    The other is how the science is handled. In Kitzmiller v. Dover it was handled pretty well for example, but I don’t expect that that will always be the case as the world of science is somewhat alien to the world of law.

    In the meantime, it looks like it may be a long wait for the outcome, and there are plenty of other issues for me to be dissatisfied about.

  414. #414 dean
    October 10, 2015

    Deserphile, I just skimmed that article (always concerning to see statistics done with Excel) – did he really fit a couple regressions with no intercept and still try to discuss correlation and R^2 values? That’s a tip-off of statistical problems right there.

  415. #415 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 13, 2015

    Marco: To answer your first question, yes, I absolutely would advise my client to bifurcate the case, at least for the discovery phase. Nothing will happen while the case is stayed. If Mann’s case is as strong as he thinks it is, that will become apparent during discovery. Steyn will divulge, either through deposition testimony, produced documents, etc. , that he made the comments with actual malice, after knowing them to be false. Once Mann is armed with his information, he can then submit formal offers, which will dramatically increase his chance of recovering attorneys fees post trial. Also, if that happened, and I was advising Steyn, I would tell Steyn he needs to settle.

    Nothing good happens when a case is stayed, except for attorneys that is (lawyers still have to keep an eye on files that are under a stay, if for no other reason then to monitor the status of the stay, and keep informed of the underlying case). I have recommended bifurcation on numerous occasions. I have never (that I can recall) recommend a client stay a matter.

  416. #416 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 13, 2015

    As to your second question, Marco, I think I answered it previously, but if not, I apologize. My thoughts on this case can be summarized as:
    1) The court made the right decision in allowing Mann to proceed with discovery, because he has pled sufficient facts which, if true, entitles him to recovery (note, many people interpreted this decision as the court saying mann has a good case, when in reality it did no such thing)
    2) Once discovery commences, Mann will have an extremely difficult time proving his case, because he will have to prove to very difficult things: that Steyn knew his statements were false, and still made the comments purely out of malice. Again, this standard is almost impossible. Absent an admission by Steyn (either during deposition, responses to interrogatories, or if an email or letter is discovered in which Steyn admits as much), Mann’s case fails as a matter of law.
    3) If mann wins at trial, without producing evidence described in #2, I would expect the appellate court to overturn the verdict and remand. It might not be 9-0 in the supreme court (if it got that far), but it would likely be 7-2, at least.
    4) That being said, it is theoretically possible Mann can meet his burden. If he can find evidence that Steyn knew these statements were false, and made the statements solely out of malice, then I would absolutely change my opinion.

    Steyn is on record as saying he made the comment because he believes the hockey stick is bunk, and it is was a shame that many nations, including his native Canada, relied on it to pass environmental regulation.

    Steyn then authors a book, which is a collection of public quotes by noted scientists who disagree with Mann, or at least think Mann’s practices are suspect, and that he molds data to fit his desired results. This tells me Steyn actually believes what he said, and was reasonable, if not right, in doing so.

    Steyn may be right regarding the hockey stick; he may be wrong. But, based on the information currently available, his speech is protected. It is important to remember that “fraud” does not necessarily mean criminal fraud. Fraud has many meanings, and in the context of his post, “fraud” means intentionally deceitful.

    Also, Mann relies on his clearance by multiple investigations. Steyn makes the point that at least one investigation, done by PSU, is suspect. Again, the issue is not whether Steyn is right or wrong (although truth is a complete defense), but whether Steyn’s speech is protected. 97% of legal scholars agree that it is…

  417. #417 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 13, 2015

    “… did he really fit a couple regressions with no intercept and still try to discuss correlation and R^2 values?”

    Yes, and that is the least of his sins. Heh. His Monte Carlo simulation isn’t even analogous, since the locations for ocean surface samples for measuring the suspension of CO2 in sea water are not pseudo-random; ships and floating instrumentation buoys don’t move that way. The measurement locations appear chaotic when mapped on a Mercator Projection, but shipping lanes and ocean currents dictate where most of the samples were taken— not a pseudo-random number generator. Anchored instrumentation are being places in as many locations as money allows, but there are so damn few of them that the data are utterly meaningless at the moment. Another 3,000 or so devices are needed, all with station-keeping technologies (either tethered to the ocean floor, or motive with electric motors).

    Even thinking about writing the “paper” itself was just… silly. The sample size is tiny, not randomized, and too brief. Maybe in another 30 years there will be enough data to write a paper or two on the subject.

    The writer has also written a “paper” about CH4 and how it’s not a problem if and when the permafrost thaws. And another on how increased cloud cover is preventing Earth from warming. And another paper on why the Queen’s Knight’s Gambit should not always be declined, and why, and when.

    Oy vey.

  418. #418 Marco
    October 14, 2015

    Dan, as to
    2: No, he does *not* have to show Steyn knew his statements were false. I’d fire you as my legal council for telling me something even *I* know is not true.

    4: If Steyn produces the book as evidence, he would have to show he knew all of these quotes when he made his statement. If not, his book cannot be evidence (you cannot claim it was a logical consequence for you to call someone a pedophile, when you learn years after you made your claim that there are others who have stated something that may perhaps be interpreted such that they maybe thought there was something odd with this person and his approach to children, but clearly not saying they thought he was a pedophile or anything like that – this is about the best you can do with many of the quotes Steyn collected).

  419. #419 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    October 14, 2015

    Dan:

    Mann…will have to prove to very difficult things: that Steyn knew his statements were false, and still made the comments purely out of malice.

    You are wrong. Mann does not have to prove that Steyn knew the statements were false. To repeat my comment #392:

    Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.

    Steyn made various claims that were so vicious that malice is assumed.
    Further:

    In order to be held liable for defamation, the person accused must have made the statements with knowledge they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

    The legal definition of malice includes “reckless disregard for the truth”. The simple fact is, there was ample evidence that Mann did not “torture and molest” the data, but Steyn failed to check. That means he acted with “reckless disregard for the truth”, which ipso facto means he acted with malice.

  420. #420 dean
    October 14, 2015

    Yes, and that is the least of his sins.

    As I say, I just skimmed it and that jumped out. We have mid-terms now and I haven’t had time to read it fully, and you’ve just told me it isn’t worth the bother.

    One of the great things in statistics (and every discipline, I’m sure) since I was in grad school is the immense advancement in affordable, available, computing power. That’s also a bad thing, because now clowns like him can run his/her own analysis (if work in Excel can be called an analysis) despite not understanding anything about statistics.

  421. #421 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 14, 2015

    “2: No, he does *not* have to show Steyn knew his statements were false. I’d fire you as my legal council for telling me something even *I* know is not true.”

    I suspect “Dan” has no training and no knowledge of the law. You are, of course, 100% correct: it need only be demonstrated that the falsehood is false, and that has been done.

    As for Steyn, it is assumed by law that he is not a non compos mentis; he must therefore have known his false statement is false because it was and is widely known to be false— hundreds of competent scientists examined Dr. Mann’s methodologies and found nothing scandalous, nor deliberate falsification, and that was widely published.

  422. #422 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 14, 2015

    “If Steyn produces the book as evidence, he would have to show he knew all of these quotes when he made his statement. If not, his book cannot be evidence ….”

    Hee. No lawyer would allow Steyn to submit the book as evidence that Dr. Mann did anything wrong— no lawyer would allow her client to be subjected to cross examination regarding the quote-mining. If Steyn asked the judge to admit the book as evidence, Dr. Mann’s council would then be allowed to demand that Steyn place the mangled quotes into the context they were given. The lawyer might just as well hand Steyn a wakizashi and suggest Steyn seppuku as the best defense.

    Dr. Man’s lawyers, however, would love to have the book accepted as evidence of Steyn’s malice. They would not have the fun of cross-examining Steyn for explaining the context of the quote and how they were mangled, because they burden would be Dr. Mann’s: he would have to place the quotes in their context, not Steyn. But I suspect he is already prepared to do that.

    I wonder why “lawyer” Dan here doesn’t know these things.

  423. #423 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 14, 2015

    Dan The “Lawyer” wrote: “Mann…will have to prove to very difficult things: that Steyn knew his statements were false, and still made the comments purely out of malice.”

    The fact that the above statement is false has been mentioned here in this discussion thread several times; Dan The “Lawyer” still does not know it’s a fact.

  424. #424 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 15, 2015

    Julian: You are wrong on two counts re: libel per se. It looks like you came late to the conversation, so you probably missed the part about Mann being a public person. When the Plaintiff is a public person (in which the court has — rightly– already classified Mann), actual malice is necessary. Another way of stating it is that libel per se is not available to public persons.

    Second, libel per se does not apply to opinion pieces. Steyn’s blog post was an editorial on a topic of public importance — exactly the type of statement not subject to a libel suit. Steyn was accusing Mann of committing Fraud in the legal sense (although he could, as a public person); he was accusing him of cherry picking data to obtain a pre-determined result, which would be, you know, fraudulent.
    As usual, Julian, you cite no evidence, either academic articles or case law, in support of your position. This case has been discussed frequently in the public domain (because Mann and Steyn are public persons).

    Surely you could find one article, no?

    Desertphile, it is funny you try and attack me when you ridiculous statements like “there is no such thing as an amicus brief, it is amicus curiae” Um, “amicus” is the shortened, colloquial phase for amicus curiae, as in “Many groups, including the ACLU and almost every major media outlet has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Steyn” means the same as “no one was filed an amicus brief in support of Mann. Other examples: “pro hac” means “pro hac vice”, pro se or pro per means proper person, etc.

    I’ve already identified myself, and confirmed I am indeed a practicing lawyer. Why would I lie about it? Every point I make, I back up with either case law or an academic article by a legal professor. The consensus is clear: Mann’s case is weak, at best…

  425. #425 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 15, 2015

    See, Desertphile, your statement about the Steyn’s book (#422) is further evidence you really know nothing about the law. What on Earth do you mean that “no lawyer would allow Steyn to introduce” the book into evidence. It is not up to Steyn; Mann can produce it just as easily.

    You also clearly don’t understand the difference between admissible evidence, and discoverable information. Any information that is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence” is fair game during discovery. The question of whether it is admissible is a different question. While our system favors broad admissibility of evidence, that standard is still far more narrow then what is discoverable.

    If Mann, via counsel, wants to cross-examine Steyn on the book, he certainly can do so during deposition. The book is probably admissible to, and, no, context wont matter. If Steyn quoted someone erroneously, and that person later clarifies, it just means Steyn was justified in believing it.

    Also, I promise you, even if a few of the people he quoted back track and claim they were taken out of context, most of them will stand by what they said.

    Let me guess: You haven’t read his book? didn’t think so….

  426. #426 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 15, 2015

    Desertphile: How is Steyn’s book evidence of malice? Again, thank you for proving the rationale behind the “public person” distinction in libel law. If it didn’t exist, an overly-sensitive, thin-skinned person like Mann could always claim any statement that challenges his findings is “malicious.”

    Steyn didn’t make these comments for the SOLE purpose of hurting Mann, although I suspect his reputation will continue its long decline into the gutter (started by his fake claim to be a noble prize winner). However, that long decline is the result of his questionable scientific methods, per the experts Steyn quotes, his bullying tactics and his resort to litigation…

  427. #427 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 15, 2015

    Julian: There is just as much ample evidence Mann did “molest and torture” the data. Also, one of Steyn’s points is that at lease some of the information that supposedly clears him can’t be taken seriously, because Mann and Sandusky had the same employer, were investigated by the same university, and ultimately cleared by the same university.

    Agree or disagree, that statement, AGAIN, is a legitimate opinion on a matter of public importance….

  428. #428 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    October 16, 2015

    Dan, you are being a fool:

    [W]hen the Plaintiff is a public person (in which the court has — rightly– already classified Mann), actual malice is necessary.

    The legal definition of malice includes “reckless disregard for the truth”. The simple fact is, there was ample evidence that Mann did not “torture and molest” the data, but Steyn failed to check. That means he acted with “reckless disregard for the truth”, which ipso facto means he acted with malice. Just what part of that is so difficult for you to understand?
    As for:

    [L]ibel per se does not apply to opinion pieces.

    The issue is not that Steyn holds an opinion, it’s that he made a specific accusation. He specifically claimed that Mann distorted the data. Steyn did not state that as an opinion, he stated that as FACT.
    I do not believe your claim that you are a lawyer. The fact that you either don’t know or don’t understand that the legal definition of malice includes “reckless disregard of the truth”, that Steyn made actual claims of fact that have since been shown to be wrong, and made them without regard to their accuracy, and that he therefore acted with reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. with MALICE) tells me you’re just a poseur who came in here “dressed up in lawyer drag”, to use Obstreperous Applesauce’s wonderful phrase.

  429. #429 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 16, 2015

    Dan,

    “I am indeed a practicing lawyer. Why would I lie about it?”

    This is the Internet, it’s a jungle out there. You could be using 9591’s identity, although if that’s the case, you have made a serious mistake. For the sake of argument (and because I’m too lazy to nail it down) I’m willing to accept that you legally practice law.

    But that’s not the end of it I’m afraid, because for the purposes of this thread, you’re more troll than lawyer. Further I don’t think you’re catching all of the intended irony–irony that literal-minded, right-wing types are notorious for missing.

    You are also absolutely clueless about the science, clueless about how science functions, CLUELESS about Mann’s work, PLUS you have incorporated denialist memes and attitudes into your world view. Fatal error in this venue.

    You should be so lucky as to be as distinguished in you career as Mann is in his.

  430. #430 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 16, 2015

    “Desertphile: How is Steyn’s book evidence of malice?”

    If you were a lawyer, Dan, you’d know.

  431. #431 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 16, 2015

    “What on Earth do you mean that “no lawyer would allow Steyn to introduce” the book into evidence.”

    Er, if you were a lawyer you would understand why. You see, “Dan The Lawyer,” when one side of a tort requests evidence to be admitted by the court, it grants the other side of the law suit to cross examine that evidence and also demand an explanation for why it was presented as evidence. No lawyer would ever allow Steyn, NA, or CEI to face cross examination of the book: they would have to place each quote-mined quote in to context, and that would ruin their defense. A lawyer would know this fact, Dan.

    ” It is not up to Steyn; Mann can produce it just as easily.”

    Yes, Dan The Lawyer, I know: wrote that fact above. I also wrote that Dr. Mann doing so would shift the burden of providing context to the quote-mined quote on to his shoulders, away from the libelers and defamers. Because malice has already been demonstrated (two judges said Dr. Mann “is likely” (their phrase) to demonstrate that fact), it is a waste of time and effort to have Dr. Mann ask the judge to include Steyn’s pamphlet as evidence.

    Dr. Mann’s council would *LOVE* Steyn to submit his pamphlet as evidence: it would be a huge cherry on top of his case. Only a grossly incompetent lawyer would let Steyn do so. If you were a lawyer, Dan The Lawyer, you would understand why.

  432. #432 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 16, 2015

    “When the Plaintiff is a public person (in which the court has — rightly– already classified Mann), actual malice is necessary.”

    Yeah: Dr. Mann did that already, got the tee-shirt, and used his hockey stick to beat the bloody shit out of the defendants’ “we were just stating our opinion” lie. Privilege (“public figure”) does not apply to malice (if you were a lawyer you’d know that).

  433. #433 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 16, 2015

    “Desertphile, it is funny you try and attack me when you ridiculous statements like “there is no such thing as an amicus brief, it is amicus curiae” Um, “amicus” is the shortened, colloquial phase for amicus curiae….”

    No lawyer would be that lazy. The phrase “amicus brief” haw no meaning.

  434. #434 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 16, 2015

    “I’ve already identified myself, and confirmed I am indeed a practicing lawyer. Why would I lie about it?”

    Jennifer Lawrence is my sex slave. It says so right here on Greg’s blog.

  435. #435 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 16, 2015

    “I do not believe your claim that you are a lawyer.”

    It appears Dan The Lawyer doesn’t have any legal reference books, or maybe he’s a business tax lawyer. As a criminal defense lawyer, he’d make an excellent pastry chef.

  436. #436 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 16, 2015

    “There is just as much ample evidence Mann did “molest and torture” the data.”

    So, you are the only person on the planet that has this evidence….. and you are not sharing it with Steyn, nor NA, nor CEI: why?

  437. #437 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 16, 2015

    “You are also absolutely clueless about the science, clueless about how science functions, CLUELESS about Mann’s work….”

    … and also appears to be clueless regarding libel.

  438. #438 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 16, 2015

    “Basically you arrive here tarted up in what appears to be lawyer drag….”

    BEST TURN OF PHRASE EVER!

  439. #439 FLwolverine
    Recovering lawyer
    October 16, 2015

    “pro se or pro per means proper person, etc.”

    Well, if it helps any, Dan’s wrong about this too. “Pro per” is short for the Latin “propria persona”, which might literally mean proper person but is used in the law to mean “on behalf of oneself”. To say “Steyn is appearing in the proper person” would be meaningless; to say he’s appearing in pro per would immediately be understood to mean he’s representing himself.

  440. #440 Brian Dodge
    October 16, 2015

    “…there was ample evidence that Mann did not “torture and molest” the data, but Steyn failed to check.”
    It’s my opinion that Steyn didn’t just fail to check, but willfully and deliberately ignored the evidence. That Steyn could only find a slim books worth of support in the volumes of scientific literature which he and his staff had to have read in order to quote mine and deliberately distort (one might say “molest and torture”) what other scientists say about Mann is clear indication of an ongoing pattern of intent to deliberately and maliciously slander, libel, and damage Mann. After all, that’s what the National Review and the people buying his book are paying him to do.

  441. #441 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 19, 2015

    Holy cow, there is a lot of stuff here; most of which is wrong, of course. FLwolverine (tough loss on Saturday, btw. I am UM fan myself, having grown up in the Detroit area), I agree with everything you say regarding “pro per;” It is indeed shorthand for the Latin phrase propria persona. Thanks for making my point.

    When did I ever say Steyn was appearing in pro per (although he previously was, for a short amount of time)? The only reason I mentioned that was to respond to Desertphile’s lame critique that there is a difference between an amicus brief and an amicus curiae brief, and all those people who don’t recognize it are fools. I merely pointed out it is common in the legal world to have shortened, colloquial terms, especially when the technical phrase is in Latin. Pro per is but one example; I never said or meant to say Steyn was appearing in pro per.

  442. #442 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 19, 2015

    Desertphile, just stop. First, I linked to my profile at he Nevada State Bar website. If that isn’t good enough, sorry. Second, amicus brief has meaning; it is used all the time by practicing lawyers and the media.

    Also, what on Earth are you talking about in post 431, when you say Mann will shift the burden to himself by introducing the book. MANN ALREADY HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF BECAUSE HE IS….WAIT FOR IT…THE PLAINTIFF. See, in our great legal system, when you file a lawsuit, you have the burden of proof. The presumption of innocence (or non-liability, to be exact) applies in civil cases. Steyn only has the burden of proof on his counter claim and affirmative defenses. If Mann wants to claim the statements in Steyn’s book are libelous, he has the burden, no matter what party introduces the evidence (I introduce Plaintiff’s medical records all the time; the burden doesn’t shift to my client as a result).

    Steyn in on record, in the media, saying his book was a compilation of the evidence he has so far showing he reasonably believed his statements re: Mann were true. If other scientists say as much, certainly a lay journalist whose primary area of expertise is theatre and show tunes can rely on same.

  443. #443 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 19, 2015

    I agree, Applesauce (post 429), I am clueless about science. I have said, over and over again, I have no idea if Steyn’s statements re: Mann are true, or if Mann’s research is legit.

    What I have said, and am quite certain based on my own legal expertise, and that of eminent legal scholars who specialize in First Amendment jurisprudence, is that Steyn’s statements are protected by the First Amendment.

    Mann’s conduct during the pendency of this litigation reveals he is not interested in having his day in court. He is simply using the process to try and wear Steyn out, and to discourage other people from criticizing him.

    It is not working, and will not work. I suspect his case will resolve one of two ways: Mann dismisses his lawsuit, with each party to bear their fees and costs (a win for steyn), or Steyn wins on the merits, and Mann is on the hook for 7 figure legal fees and costs.

  444. #444 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 19, 2015

    Julian, you’re right. I am not a lawyer. The link to the Nevada State Bar means nothing. Also, the professor at UC Berkley who published an article stating Mann has no claim also isn’t a lawyer.

    I have admitted all along that I don’t practice in the area of First Amendment Law. My practice focuses on transportation law primarily, which comprises 75% of my case load. The other 25% is comprised of medical malpractice, products liability, and general commercial litigation.

    It is precisely because this area is not the focus of my practice that I have relied on other attorneys who do specialize in first amendment jurisprudence (that is what we lawyers do; instead of just saying things, we back it up with authority).

    Julian, you can claim all you want that malice is presumed, but you keep ignoring the private person/public person distinction. I have cited authority from multiple sources, including one of the foremost First Amendment scholars. He said (paraphrasing): You can say anything you want about a PUBLIC PERSON if you are dumb enough to believe it.

    I will take you seriously when you provide any authority for your position. And by authority, I mean a legal scholar, who agrees the law you cite applies to this case. The Mann/Steyn case has been heavily commented on in the legal community. If such authority supporting your position exists, it would be easy to find.

    Good luck…

  445. #445 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    October 19, 2015

    Julian, you can claim all you want that malice is presumed, but you keep ignoring the private person/public person distinction.

    THAT. DOESN’T. MATTER. The fact that Mann is a public figure (thanks to Steyn’s actions, b.t.w.) does not get Steyn off the hook. The bar may be higher for a public figure, but it doesn’t mean that Steyn’s off the hook.
    I have cited authority from multiple sources, including one of the foremost First Amendment scholars. He said (paraphrasing): You can say anything you want about a PUBLIC PERSON if you are dumb enough to believe it.
    I read his article. Here’s something from it:

    Mann has to prove that the bloggers either knew he wasn’t actually guilty of scientific misconduct or were aware that they didn’t know one way or the other.

    But in the comments, this is challenged.

    I believe the heart of this case is going to focus on “reckless disregard for facts” when Steyn used the phrase “fraudulent hockey stick graph.” His phrasing doesn’t suggest anything about an opinion, it’s a statement that can be proven true or false.
    Dr. Mann’s 1998/99 research papers that first produced the hockey stick graph have been the subject of nearly a dozen very public, high profile, investigations. Each and every one of those investigations has shown that Mann’s work was not fraudulent. Subsequent multiproxy reconstructions similar to Mann’s work, but using different statistical methods and different proxy sets, have all turned up conclusions that agree with Mann’s work. On top of that, there have been no reconstructions that have shown anything contradictory.
    I think it’s going to be difficult for Steyn, NR and CEI to claim that they were not aware of all this readily available information.

    In other words, it looks like Steyn et al. showed “reckless disregard for the facts”.

  446. #446 FLwolverine
    October 19, 2015

    “When did I ever say Steyn was appearing in pro per (although he previously was, for a short amount of time)?”

    Um, when did I ever attribute that statement to you? It was simply an illustration of proper usage of the phrase “in pro per”.

  447. #447 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 19, 2015

    …. I have no idea if Steyn’s statements re: Mann are true, or if Mann’s research is legit.”

    In other words, you are not intelligent enough to read what dozens of scientists have concluded on the subject. Are you really so proud of that fact that you must share it here, several times? Really?

    No scientists have found anything sinister about MBH98 or MBH99, nor any other academic achievement of Dr Mann’s. This fact has been widely discussed among Dr. Mann’s peers, and the media, for over five years. Mr. Steyn therefore has no excuse for his malicious and callously indifferent behavior.

    http://www.snolab.ca/public/JournalClub/Chris.pdf

    Scientists have not found any problems with the methodologies; only hysterical paranoid denailists are able to see them, and they refuse to show their discoveries to scientists.

    “The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions supporting the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.”

    “At the end of April Science published a reconstruction by J. Oerlemans based on glacier length records from different parts of the world, and found consistent independent evidence for the period from 1600 to 1990 supporting other reconstructions regarding magnitude and timing of global warming.[154] In May the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research advised media about a detailed analysis by Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann, first presented at the American Geophysical Union’s December 2004 meeting in San Francisco, which used their own code to replicate the MBH results, and found the MBH method to be robust even with modifications. Their work contradicted the claims by McIntyre and McKitrick about high 15th century global temperatures and allegations of methodological bias towards a hockey stick outcomes, and they concluded that the criticisms of the hockey stick graph were groundless”

    “Various criticisms of the MBH statistical methods were discussed in the context of more recent research which explored ways of addressing these problems, and showed greater amplitude of temperature variations over 1000 to 2000 years. Recent papers cited included Wahl & Ammann 2006 (in press). On McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism of principal component analysis as tending to bias the shape of the reconstructions, it found that “In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature”, and reconstructions using other methods were qualitatively similar. Some of the criticisms of validation techniques were more valid than others, these issues and the effect on robustness of the choice of proxies contributed to the committee’s view of increased uncertainties. They called for further research into methods and a search for more proxies for earlier periods.

    At the press conference the three NRC panellists said they found no evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as data manipulation, or “anything other than an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure”. Bloomfield as a statistician considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been “quite reasonable” in a “first of its kind study”. He said “I would not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if I’d been involved in it”. In response to a question from Edward Wegman on the MBH use of principal components analysis, Bloomfield said this had been reviewed by the committee along with other statistical issues, and “while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.”

  448. #448 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 19, 2015

    “Desertphile, just stop. First, I linked to my profile at he Nevada State Bar website. If that isn’t good enough, sorry.”

    First off, tongue my balls. This is Greg’s blog, not yours. Go dictate policy on your own blog, not someone else’s.

    Second, your behavior here shows no knowledge of what tort litigation is, what defamation is, and what libel is; you have consistently written statements that are diametrically the opposite of what the law actually says on these issues. Several people have mentioned that fact to you.

    Here is a fine example of what I mean by your inability to understand basic law:

    “Also, what on Earth are you talking about in post 431, when you say Mann will shift the burden to himself by introducing the book. MANN ALREADY HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF BECAUSE HE IS….WAIT FOR IT…THE PLAINTIFF.
    I explained it to you twice already, Shit-for-brains. A lawyer would have understood the first time. Go back and read what I wrote, or have a bright eight-year-old child explain it to you.

  449. #449 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 19, 2015

    I have finally found evidence of SN’s Benghazi scandal! And it’s cost us US$3,500,000 so far, and is expected to cost at least another US$1,000,000 by the end of the year.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/10/19/republicans-taking-longer-to-itnvestigate-benghazi-than-it-took-o-investigate-9-11/

  450. #450 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 20, 2015

    FLwolverine, I misread your post in 439. However, I can attest that “proper person” is used frequently by lawyers; perhaps not as much as pro per or per se….

    I will pass on “tonguing” your balls, Desertphile. I thought you already had a sex slave. My my, someone is testy. I would think the fact that I can engage in meaningful debate without resorting to personal insults would prove I make my living in the dispute resolution, i.e., legal, field.

  451. #451 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 20, 2015

    The reason, Desertphile, I don’t know much about global warming is that it is a subject that does not interest me much. In fact, my interest is limited to legal and political questions. Hence, my presence on this post. I also find public policy debates regarding global warming (cap and trade, carbon credits, etc.) interesting.

    I am sure I could figure out the veracity, or lack thereof, of Mann’s statements. I just don’t care to. I care about free speech, because I care about freedom, democracy, individual rights, etc.

  452. #452 dean
    October 20, 2015

    I just don’t care to

    Ding ding ding ding. The rest of your comments should be taken seriously because?

  453. #453 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 20, 2015

    Dean, my comments regarding FREE SPEECH should be taken seriously, for many reasons. First, as a practicing lawyer in good standing with the Nevada Bar, the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, I have more than a passing knowledge of First Amendment jurisprudence when compared to the population at large (admittedly, within the legal community, there are other members more familiar with First Amendment law than me, which is why I cite them).

    Second, as was discussed earlier, Mann v. Steyn is not about science. Courts don’t decide science. It is about free speech, which is why numerous media outlets have filed amicus briefs in support of Steyn. How many times does it need repeating: this case is about free speech, not science.

    Let me ask a serious question: how many of you think that it should be illegal to “deny” climate change. I have seen some scientists promote the idea that “deniers” should be criminally charged.

    Certainly, no one here would agree with such an insane opinion, I hope…

  454. #454 Brainstorms
    October 20, 2015

    Is this “about free speech”, or is it “about free speech vs libelous speech” ? With a jury to decide which it actually is…

    Dan, you’re letting on that you’ve already decided this case. Confirmation bias, anyone?

  455. #455 dean
    October 20, 2015

    Second, as was discussed earlier, Mann v. Steyn is not about science.

    Bullcrap. If you can’t be bothered to understand the scientific principles behind Mann’s work, you are in no position to tell whether Steyn knew or did not know that his comments were false.

    Lazy on investigating the facts of the case means there is no reason to take the rest of your comments seriously, no matter how pompous you are in stating your credentials.

  456. #456 Narad
    October 20, 2015

    It is about free speech, which is why numerous media outlets have filed amicus briefs in support of Steyn.

    Why Steyn? The important question is whether denial of an anti-SLAPP is immediately appealable (which it should be, IMO), but he’s not a party to that.

  457. #457 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 20, 2015

    Dean, I am in a just as good of a position to tell if Steyn knew his comments were false, if not better, than anyone here because, like me, Steyn is not a scientist. He made his statements as a lay person, and as a fellow layperson, his statements seem reasonable, especially when considered with the evidence he has in support of his statements, which he published in the form of a book.

    You make the same mistake Julian has been making. While it is theoretically possible to be held liable for defamation against a public person, in the real-world it never happens. Editorial pages would cease to exist if Mann’s position was right.

    If the New York Times, NBC, WSJ, etc., can comment, I think I can…

    An analogous (remember, this is only an analogy), would be in equal protection jurisprudence. There are different levels of scrutiny — rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny — that apply based on what group of citizens the government intends to treat differently. For example, differences based on income level is subject to rational basis test, meaning as long as the government has a rational basis for the law, it passes constitutional muster. The Supreme court has never ruled a piece of legislation fails to satisfy this test.

    On the other end of the spectrum, distinctions based upon race are subject to strict scrutiny, which means the government needs a compelling justification to enact a law that treats African americans, for example, different that whites. While technically possible, there has never been a case (at least when I was in law school) that passed strict scrutiny. So, while theoretically possible, in the real world it won’t happen.

    Strict scrutiny is exactly the same has being liable for defamation to public person. It is all fine and dandy for some arcane law school discussion, but it doesn’t happen in the real world

    Thanks for coming out…

  458. #458 RickA
    United States
    October 20, 2015

    Narad #456 is correct.

    Steyn did not appeal the denial of the dismissal motion.

    Remember he didn’t want to drag things out – but wanted to get on with discovery (taking Mann’s deposition) and trial.

    I haven’t read the amicus briefs – but wouldn’t be surprised if they discussed the free speech rights of all the defendants (Steyn, Simberg and their publishers), even though Steyn didn’t join in the appeal.

  459. #459 Narad
    October 20, 2015

    Steyn did not appeal the denial of the dismissal motion.

    Not only that, he himself comically filed an amicus brief in the appeal.

  460. #460 Narad
    October 20, 2015

    He made his statements as a lay person, and as a fellow layperson, his statements seem reasonable, especially when considered with the evidence he has in support of his statements, which he published in the form of a book.

    Slapping together a book afterward does not make the allegedly defamatory statement itself an opinion based on disclosed facts. Have you ever wondered why the codefendants are invoking “hyperbole”?

  461. #461 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 20, 2015

    Narad, but slapping together a book that quotes dozens, upon dozens, of prominent scientists who state Mann uses questionable scientific methods, is a bully, etc., is evidence that supports the proposition that Steyn believed his comments to be true. The fact that he slapped the book together afterwards doesn’t mean that he didn’t know of these comments, or hear them beforehand. As Steyn said, the material for his book is based largely on the evidence he had gathered in support for this litigation.

    Steyn has responded to Mann’s discovery. I suspect one of the interrogatories Mann sent to Steyn was something like “Please state, with specificity, each and every published scientist and/or scientific article, that supports your statements about Mann, that you were aware of when you made the statement ?” This rogg (shorthand for interrogatory, kind of like amicus brief) would have been followed up with a request for document production that said “please produce each and every article that provides foundation for your statements about Mann (or, alternatively, please produce all articles listed in response to interrogatory —). Steyn would have disclosed these articles in response.

    Regarding hyperbole, you really don’t understand metaphors, do you? A metaphor consists of two parts, the vehicle, and the underlying message. The vehicle, this Steyn’s metaphor, was the Sandusky/PSU reference to make the point that Mann’s reliance on being “cleared” by PSU’s investigation should be viewed skeptically, because PSU’s investigation of a known pedophile was a sham. The co-defendant’s reliance on hyperbole goes to the vehicle of the metaphor

  462. #462 Laws of Nature
    October 20, 2015

    Dean wrote “[..] Lazy on investigating the facts of the case means there is no reason to take the rest of your comments seriously, no matter how pompous you are in stating your credentials.”
    Well, I could point out, that almost 200 posts after my citation of Brandon Schollenberger in #268 not a single comment here was able to correct this highly critical summary of Mann’s deeds, so the current status of the discussion here is therefore highly critical of Mann’s behavior.. If assurances like “this has been debunked 1000 times” are true, does it means all Mann supporter here are just too lazy to point it out once more..
    So, is there something wrong with that summary and what would that be?

  463. #463 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    October 21, 2015

    LON, you are straight up lying.

    Well, I could point out, that almost 200 posts after my citation of Brandon Schollenberger in #268 not a single comment here was able to correct this highly critical summary of Mann’s deeds.

    Comment #269 by Marco did. You are willfully closing your eyes to evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

  464. #464 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    October 21, 2015

    Dan @ #457:

    You make the same mistake Julian has been making. While it is theoretically possible to be held liable for defamation against a public person, in the real-world it never happens.

    Never? I went to Google and put “celebrity libel or defamation” in the search box. Multiple hits were returned, including against US journals and newspapers. As I said above, the bar may be higher for a public figure, but that doesn’t mean it’s insurmountable.
    You say you’re a lawyer, just not a libel one. In future, I’d advise you to stick to what you know. You’re just making a fool of yourself here.

  465. #465 Laws of Nature
    October 21, 2015

    “LON, you are straight up lying.[..]
    Comment #269 by Marco did. You are willfully closing your eyes to evidence that contradicts your beliefs.”

    Well, you are wrong on three counts here! That is something for such a short sentence! Marco’s answer was irrelevant for Schollenberger’s discription!
    Mann did something (possibly described by Schollenberger), Marco says Amman did something similar .. how does that influence Schollenberger’s description?
    Marco does not dispute, that Mann’s “method” overweights some proxies and thus is faulty
    (and since the censored directory shows Mann knew about that, he is willfully misleading his readers)
    I repeat my question:
    So, is there something wrong with that summary and what would that be?

  466. #466 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “Narad, but slapping together a book that quotes dozens, upon dozens, of prominent scientists who state Mann uses questionable scientific methods, is a bully, etc., is evidence that supports the proposition that Steyn believed his comments to be true.”

    In other words, you are saying Steyn is a moron.

    #1) Look up “quote mining.”

    #2) It does not matter what Steyn believed.

    #3) Go talk to a lawyer is any of this still makes no sense to you.

  467. #467 RickA
    October 21, 2015

    Desertphile #466:

    It does matter what Steyn believed.

    It also matters if Steyn was expressing an opinion or a statement of fact.

    You should consult with a lawyer yourself.

  468. #468 Marco
    October 21, 2015

    “and since the censored directory shows Mann knew about that, he is willfully misleading his readers”

    As I also pointed out, some people apparently do not understand the concept of “censoring” in the scientific sense. The “censored” directory does not show Mann knew some proxies were overweighted. It only showed that removing (that is, the scientific censoring) a certain proxy caused changes in the reconstruction. This is not the same as overweighting.

  469. #469 Marco
    October 21, 2015

    As I pointed out earlier, if Steyn wants to use his book to explain his statement (note he did so as a matter of fact, not as opinion), he would have to show he already knew all of this before he made his statement. Even one single quote that is dated after Steyn made the statement about Mann would undermine his book as justification of his opinion.

  470. #470 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 21, 2015

    Julian: Actually, I really am not making a fool of myself, unless you think well-known authorities, who also happen to be professors at some of the most prestigious law schools in the country, are likewise making a fool of themselves.

    The opinions are not mine; they are legal scholars opinions. I have been very clear that Mann has a case based on the pleadings, and the court is rightly permitting to conduct discovery. Where his case will fail is during discovery, given how difficult it is to adduce evidence of malice (which is necessary component, despite what non-lawyers such as you think).

    Again, show me one scholar who thinks Mann has a strong case.

    Didn’t think so….

  471. #471 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 21, 2015

    Since everyone seems obsessed about my status as a practicing lawyer, I will put this to rest. I have already linked to profile on the Nevada State Bar. You can go to my firm website, listed there, and see my profile.

    After that, go to my google + page. I will even throw a shout out to all you Mann-boys, dated today. Plus, you will see my smiling face on both the firm website and my google + page.

    Anyone interested?

  472. #472 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “The reason, Desertphile, I don’t know much about global warming is that it is a subject that does not interest me much.”

    You don’t know much about tort litigation, defamation, and libel, yet that hasn’t stopped you from dictating authoritatively on the subjects.

  473. #473 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “I am sure I could figure out the veracity, or lack thereof, of Mann’s statements.”

    Non sequitur. The subject is Steyn’s statements, not Dr. Mann’s. Sheeeish. And you want people to believe you are a lawyer?

  474. #474 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “Dean, my comments regarding FREE SPEECH should be taken seriously, for many reasons.”

    Non sequitur. The issue is libel, not freedom of expression.

  475. #475 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “Is this “about free speech”, or is it “about free speech vs libelous speech” ? With a jury to decide which it actually is…”

    Actually, any jury that will hear the arguments would have already been told by the trial judge that that matter has already been settled: two courts already dismissed the claim the libel in question is privileged (protected by the First Amendment). The judge would tell the jury to decide on malice, not on privilege.

    The defendants lawyers will never allow the case to be presented to a jury; the defendants will have to insist, over the advice of council.

  476. #476 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “Bullcrap. If you can’t be bothered to understand the scientific principles behind Mann’s work, you are in no position to tell whether Steyn knew or did not know that his comments were false.”

    Dan The Lawyer wishes us to believe Steyn was and is too stupid to know what he wrote is false. It is the defense by ignorance argument. It is also utterly irrelevant: it does not matter at all if Steyn, NA, and/or CEI knew the falsehood is false.

  477. #477 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “Remember he didn’t want to drag things out – but wanted to get on with discovery (taking Mann’s deposition) and trial.”

    What the actually bloody fuck? Er…. Steyn has been evading and avoiding a conclusion to the law suit every chance he can get. As for “discovery,” good fucking grief: Dr. Mann is the plaintiff, not the defendant. Plaintiffs depose; defendants deposition.

    No competent council will depose a plaintiff in a libel suit: that is professional suicide. Read the American Bar Association’s handbook “Strategies for Representing the Plaintiff” written by Edna Selan Epstein (for one example). Depositions of plaintiffs acquired by defense council help the plaintiffs, and saves the plaintiffs large sums of money.

    It would require a lawyer with utterly no brain at all to depose Dr. Mann.

  478. #478 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “Dean, I am in a just as good of a position to tell if Steyn knew his comments were false, if not better, than anyone here because….”

    Non sequitur.

    And why do you wish us to believe Steyn is a moron? Is that what you hope the defense is resting their case on?

  479. #479 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “Not only that, he himself comically filed an amicus brief in the appeal.”

    That still makes me laugh. His lawyers must have shit themselves a brick or two at that.

  480. #480 Laws of Nature
    October 21, 2015

    re #468 “The “censored” directory does not show Mann knew some proxies were overweighted. It only showed that removing (that is, the scientific censoring) a certain proxy caused changes in the reconstruction. This is not the same as overweighting.”
    Well, we seem in agreement, that Mann decided not to discuss important results unfavorable to his conclusions, that is scientific fraud.

  481. #481 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 21, 2015

    “It does matter what Steyn believed.”

    To whom? You?

  482. #482 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 21, 2015

    Dan says things like: “There is just as much ample evidence Mann did ‘molest and torture’ the data.” (~427) Yet Dan admits he knows nothing of the science. (Let’s let that sink in.) He is stealthily eliding the science into a simple matter of opinion.

    Dan is goading you. 
    DNFTT

    Dan is also baiting you. Note that he is handicapping the horse race. Unlike SN who is stupid because he argues for the sake of stupidity, lawyers are paid to argue whatever they can get away with.

    So just a thought here, if this is how Steyn’s lawyers are going to argue, it’s probably best just to let them get caught with their pants down. In other words, don’t help prepare the opposition.

  483. #483 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 22, 2015

    Desertphile: You state Steyn has been “evading and avoiding” a conclusion to this lawsuit every chance he gets. What evidence do you have to support this statement? You certainly don’t provide any in your posts.

    When I say Mann is delaying, I can back it up with facts: i.e., the fact that Steyn has responded to Mann’s discovery, but Mann refuses to respond to Steyn’s discovery. Also, the fact that Mann, not Steyn, moved to stay their action pending the other litigants anti-slap appeal.

    This is the problem with you and your ilk: you run your mouths, without providing any supporting information.

    And, from a legal point of view, “Steyn is a moron” would be good defense, because (for the umpteenth time) as every first amendment scholar says: you can say anything you want about a public person if you are dumb enough to believe it.

  484. #484 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 22, 2015

    Applesauce, the evidence I get that Mann molested and tortured date comes from other scientists. I am not saying it; other scientists are, and I am considering their point of view.

    for example, read Steyn’s book…

  485. #485 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 22, 2015

    “Applesauce, the evidence I get that Mann molested and tortured date comes from other scientists”

    What scientists? When? Where?

  486. #486 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 22, 2015

    Dan. It’s not the only statement of that kind that you have made. You seem to have swallowed the denialist take hook, line and sinker, or at the least are stuck on argumentum ad temperantium.

    There is not just scientific illiteracy, there is its more virulent phase: scientific meta-illiteracy, which is where you seem to be hanging out. If you think this suit isn’t about the science, why do you keep making a botched job of dragging it into the conversation through a back door?

    That is the only help I will give you.

  487. #487 dean
    October 22, 2015

    … the evidence I get

    I have a feeling that Dan, like so many people who simply deny the evidence and science, has a thesaurus that gives “evidence” and “assertion” as synonyms.

  488. #488 Narad
    October 22, 2015

    When I say Mann is delaying, I can back it up with facts: i.e., the fact that Steyn has responded to Mann’s discovery, but Mann refuses to respond to Steyn’s discovery. Also, the fact that Mann, not Steyn, moved to stay their action pending the other litigants anti-slap appeal.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear, poor little Mark Steyn is impatient? Is he going to stamp his feet? Big deal. Discovery was stayed (PDF) based on National Review’s motion.

    Jesus Christ, I’m not even followinng this case, but at least I have the sense not to just pull stuff out of my ass such as this and “numerous media outlets have filed amicus briefs in support of Steyn.”

  489. #489 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 22, 2015

    “Oh dear oh dear oh dear, poor little Mark Steyn is impatient? Is he going to stamp his feet? Big deal. Discovery was stayed (PDF) based on National Review’s motion.”

    Discovery is pending the specious “anti-SLAPP” argument’s appeal, which no one on either side expects will be granted. The only think Dr Mann’s council is interested in, via discovery, is whether Steyn wrote what NA claimed he wrote.

  490. #490 RickA
    United States
    October 22, 2015

    Narad #488:

    Yep – national review first filed for stay of discovery.

    Then later Mann requested that the stay be continued.

    See Mann’s brief here:

    http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6242.pdf

    Mann is not eager for discovery to commence.

  491. #491 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 22, 2015

    “Mann is not eager for discovery to commence.”

    Wow! You can also read minds? I’m astonished!

    Did you see there part where everyone agreed discovery now would be pointless? See that part?

  492. #492 Marco
    October 23, 2015

    “Then later Mann requested that the stay be continued.”

    Eh what?

    RickA, you just linked to a motion that explicitly argues that
    1) “a stay of discovery in this case is still inappropriate.”
    2) “Given the circumstances in this case, common sense and fairness counsels for this Court to allow discovery to proceed now.”
    3) “Circumstances have changed and any further delay will prejudice Dr. Mann”
    4) “However, should this Court agree with National Review and deem it appropriate to issue a stay of discovery, such a stay should not apply to Dr. Mann’s claims against Mr. Steyn.”
    5) “For all the foregoing reasons, defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order should be denied, or in the alternative this Court should allow Dr. Mann to obtain third-party discovery
    from National Review, CEI, and Rand Simberg.”

    The EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claimed!

  493. #493 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 23, 2015

    “5) “For all the foregoing reasons, defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order should be denied, or in the alternative this Court should allow Dr. Mann to obtain third-party discovery
    from National Review, CEI, and Rand Simberg.”

    The EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claimed!”

    “Ricka” has been told by several sane people here that Dr. Mann is not delaying the law suit; the evidence shows the opposite, as you noted. One can almost feel sorry for “Ricka” believing, or pretending to believe, what his cult has told him (i.e., what Steyn ordered “Ricka” and his ilk to believe).

    There are only a tiny few issues to be discovered via deposition and document collection, all of which involve who actually wrote the libel. Dr. Mann must make an obvious effort to demonstrate that Steyn actually wrote what National Review claimed Steyn wrote; just because the libel has Steyns name on it, it cannot be assumed he wrote it—- discovery, even if it fails, with demonstrate to the court that Dr. Mann made the effort to show it was not Steyn who libeled him.

    There is nothing at all that needs be discovered from Dr. Mann; in various handbooks, the American Bar Association tells lawyers to not depose plaintiffs. I cannot even imagine what the cult would want to “discover” from Dr. Mann.

  494. #494 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 23, 2015

    Hey, “Ricka!” “Ricka!” Earth to “Ricka!” Come in, “Ricka!” {THUMP! THUMP! Is this microphone working?} Paging “Ricka!” Planet Earth to “Ricka!” I have a question, if you can hear me way out there on what ever planet you live on….

    What, do you think, would be the point of deposing Dr. Mann? What documents do you believe he would be required to produce to show he was not libeled? What testimony would he be expected to give in a deposition that would have any bearing on the case?

  495. #495 Dan
    Las Vegas
    October 23, 2015

    Applesauce (486), this suit is about science in a micro-sense; it is about free-speech in the larger picture. For example, the landmark Skokie v. Illinois case was about anti-Semitism, neo-nazi’s in the sense that that the court decided whether a city could preclude an anti-Semitic group from having rallies. But the larger picture was free speech.

    Same with the case. Yes, the particulars involve science, but the impact this case has on society involves free-debate, and whether the citizenry of this great republic is subject to legal liability simply for disagreeing with the conclusions of a scientist.

    You keep calling me a denial-ist. I am not even sure what you mean by that word, but, as I have said, over and over, I have no idea of if man-made global warming exists because I have researched it. it simply is not a subject I am interested in.

    I am very interested in free speech…

  496. #496 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 23, 2015

    “Applesauce (486), this suit is about science in a micro-sense;”

    No. It’s about malice.

    it is about free-speech in the larger picture.”

    No. It’s about malice.

  497. #497 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 23, 2015

    “Yes, the particulars involve science, but the impact this case has on society involves free-debate, and whether the citizenry of this great republic is subject to legal liability simply for disagreeing with the conclusions of a scientist.”

    Sorry, Dan The Lawyer: that dog still won’t hunt.

  498. #498 FLwolverine
    Somewhere warmer than Michigan
    October 23, 2015

    #450 – Dan – at the risk of contributing to this tedious conversation, let me say that I did not “prove your point”. “In pro per” does nor translate to “proper person” as you alleged, and in 35 years of practicing law I never heard or read the term “proper person” used in a pro per or pro se context. Maybe that’s Nevada slang; maybe you’re just making it up.

    My point, by the way, is that if you aren’t getting the easy details right (like trying to pass off a false interpretation of a common legal expression), how can you be trusted to get the more important arguments right?

    And for the amusement of the non-lawyers amongst us, here’s a definition of in pro per. I think the concluding sentence is particularly appropriate to Mr Steyn’s attempt to represent himself (for whatever short period):

    In pro per:
    adj. from Latin “for one’s self,” acting on one’s own behalf, generally used to identify a person who is acting as his/her own attorney in a lawsuit. The popular abbreviation is “in pro per.” In the filed legal documents (pleadings), the party’s name, address and telephone number are written where the name, address and telephone number of the attorney would normally be stated. The words “in propria persona” or “in pro per” are typed where normally it would say “attorney for plaintiff.” Judges sometimes warn a party “in propria persona” of the old adage that “anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client and an ass for an attorney.”

    Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=975#ixzz3pPyTW2Qm

  499. #499 FLwolverine
    October 23, 2015

    Sorry. Should have said “here’s a definition of in propria persona”.

  500. #500 RickA
    United States
    October 23, 2015

    Marco #492:

    Oops – you are correct.

    I clearly didn’t read that brief close enough because you are right and I got it backwards.

    I apologize and concede that as far as I can tell Mann doesn’t want to delay discovery either – the same as Steyn.

    So maybe Mann is eager for discovery after all.

    My mind reading skills are clearly out of whack (grin).

  501. #501 RickA
    October 23, 2015

    Desertphile #494:

    It would be awesome to take Mann’s deposition.

    And there would be a lot of ground to cover.

    I would first try to get evidence to support the argument that Steyn’s statements were an opinion, then follow-up to get support that they are true (to the extent they are statements of fact).

    First – one could dream up questions directed to the issue of whether “the Mann behind the fraudulent hockey-stick graph” was an opinion or not.

    Second – one could dream up questions about whether the statement “torture and molest data” is an opinion or not.

    Third – one could dream up questions about whether each of these statements are true (to the extent they are statements of fact).

    So does hiding an R2 score make a graph fraudulent?

    Does the use of only two (or was it three) principal components in his PCA analysis make the graph fraudulent? Or is that torturing and molesting data?

    What about the centering in the PCA analysis – does that make the graph fraudulent? Is that torturing and molesting data?

    Does the manipulation of data and analysis for propaganda purposes, or advocacy purposes, which are intended to deceive readers make a graph fraudulent?

    What exactly is Mann’s understanding of what “torturing and molesting data” means? How does one torture and molest data? After all – it is Mann who is alleging that this statement is libel – so he has the burden of proof and should be able to explain what is so objectionable about the phrase.

    I wonder if using the mean instead of the median is torturing and molesting data?

    I wonder if truncating data in a graph makes it fraudulent.

    I wonder if grafting temperature record data onto proxy data makes a graph fraudulent.

    Speaking of the WMO iconic cover graph – was he the author of the WMO iconic cover, which he lists on his CV.

    Since that graph didn’t explain the grafting in the legends – does Mann think it might deceive or mislead readers?

    Is that fraudulent?

    Is that grafting torture and molest data?

    I forget all the various issues – strip-bark, yamal, upside-down whatever – I really cannot recall – but it would sure be fun to ask the questions and see the answers.

    Needless to say – it would take days and days to prepare for the deposition – because there is so much material to cover.

  502. #502 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 23, 2015

    “#450 – Dan – at the risk of contributing to this tedious conversation, let me say that I did not “prove your point”. “In pro per” does nor translate to “proper person” as you alleged, and in 35 years of practicing law I never heard or read the term “proper person” used in a pro per or pro se context. Maybe that’s Nevada slang; maybe you’re just making it up.

    “My point, by the way, is that if you aren’t getting the easy details right (like trying to pass off a false interpretation of a common legal expression), how can you be trusted to get the more important arguments right?”

    Dan The Lawyer has yet to write anything here about the law that is correct; sheeeeit, Dan The Lawyer even cited a court document that states the exact opposite of what Dan The Lawyer said it says. Dan The Lawyer still wants people to believe the suit is a “freedom of speech issue,” even though two judges already ruled on that, and the appeals court is highly unlikely to dissent (for a few dozen reasons, which the latest judge already explained). Golly, it’s almost as if Dan The Lawyer is not a lawyer…..

  503. #503 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 23, 2015

    “It would be awesome to take Mann’s deposition. And there would be a lot of ground to cover.”

    Then it’s a damn good thing you are not a lawyer. The American Bar Association, in various handbooks, suggested avoiding deposition of plaintiffs, since those depositions are nearly always irrelevant, and costly. There is absolutely nothing more Dr. Mann can state or provide about the law suit that he has not already provided.

    “I would first try to get evidence to support the argument that Steyn’s statements were an opinion, then follow-up to get support that they are true (to the extent they are statements of fact).”

    Er…. that means you would depose Steyn, not Dr. Mann. Sheeeish. Do you ever bother to read what you write?

    First – one could dream up questions directed to the issue of whether “the Mann behind the fraudulent hockey-stick graph” was an opinion or not.

    That has nothing at all with deposition; it’s already been decided by the judges.

    Second – one could dream up questions about whether the statement “torture and molest data” is an opinion or not.

    That has nothing at all with deposition; it’s already been decided by the judges.

    “Third – one could dream up questions about whether each of these statements are true (to the extent they are statements of fact).”

    That has nothing at all with deposition; it’s already been decided by the judges that the assertion is false. It has nothing at all to do with Dr. Mann: he has no testimony and no documents that address the issue.

    So does hiding an R2 score make a graph fraudulent?

    Have you stopped beating your boyfriend, “Ricka?”

    “Does the use of only two (or was it three) principal components in his PCA analysis make the graph fraudulent? Or is that torturing and molesting data?”

    That has nothing at all with deposition; it’s already been decided by the judges that the assertion is false. It has nothing at all to do with Dr. Mann: he has no testimony and no documents that address the issue.

    “What about the centering in the PCA analysis – does that make the graph fraudulent? Is that torturing and molesting data?”

    That has nothing at all with deposition; it’s already been decided by the judges that the assertion is false. It has nothing at all to do with Dr. Mann: he has no testimony and no documents that address the issue.

    “Does the manipulation of data and analysis for propaganda purposes, or advocacy purposes, which are intended to deceive readers make a graph fraudulent?”

    Isn’t beating your boyfriend evil, “Ricka?”

    Etc. Etc. Etc. You have no idea what deposition is, and no idea what the law suit is about.

  504. #504 RickA
    United States
    October 23, 2015

    Desertphile #503:

    I am a lawyer Desertphile. I am sure I said that on some previous thread – but it is ok that you forgot.

    Maybe on one of the gun threads about the 2nd amendment.

    In fact I am a patent lawyer with a BS in Electrical Engineering.

    So I work with inventions, trademarks and copyright – and litigation related to these topics.

    I have taken many depositions and do know a thing or two about the law.

    You are wrong – you would absolutely want to take Mann’s deposition as to issues relating to Steyn’s affirmative defenses – like opinion or truth.

    Consider this – Mann has called other people fraudulent (not sure if he has called other graphs fraudulent) – but you can see how Mann’s use of the “fraud” word – and what he meant – whether he considered that to be an opinion (like a person is a moron – which is subjective) versus a statement of fact (like a person has an IQ of 100 – which can be tested and established as true or false) could go to the issue of opinion and/or truth for the defense.

    The Judge only rules on questions of law or on summary judgment – questions of fact over which there is no genuine issue of material fact (taking all the other sides pleadings as true and making all factual inferences in the non-moving parties favor).

    So the things you have listed that the Judge will have decided before the deposition – WRONG!.

    The judge will not have decided whether Steyn’s statement is an opinion or not before the deposition – unless he does on summary judgment.

    But I would think that would be a question of fact with genuine issues of material fact and therefore would not be decided on summary judgment.

    So the questions of fact will go to the jury to be decided.

    So ultimately – I think whether Steyn’s words are considered opinions is a jury question.

    Whether Steyn’s words are considered true is a jury question.

    Juries are scary – because no matter how perfect your case – 12 random people (or 9 in some states) off the street can always rule against you.

    But since you know so much about the law – perhaps you are a lawyer?

  505. #505 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 23, 2015

    Oh, lord.

    OK RickA. As has been pointed out, arguing from authority is a questionable practice. If your claims are true you know this. But if you’re going to do it anyway, then do us the courtesy of identifying yourself the way that Dan has done.

    You have not demonstrated the reasoning skills of either an engineer or a lawyer, and you certainly don’t have the verbal skills of a lawyer. I’d be willing to bet that you are a resume fabulist:

    Engineer = you made a potato clock.

    Patent Attorney = you had a summer job in an office mail room and delivered some mail to some lawyers.

  506. #506 RickA
    United States
    October 23, 2015

    Obstreperous Applesauce #505:

    I am not arguing from authority.

    I am merely responding to Desertphile’s assertion “Then it’s a damn good thing you are not a lawyer.”

    And then giving my opinion about why Desertphile is wrong.

    I don’t care if you think I am a resume fabulist or not. What matters is whether what I have said is correct or not.

    Do you agree or disagree with my assertions in #504?

    Do you agree or disagree with Desertphile’s assertions in #503.

  507. #507 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 23, 2015

    “I am a lawyer Desertphile. I am sure I said that on some previous thread – but it is ok that you forgot.”

    You did say it, and if I recall correctly it was gratuitous then. But I take your point if you are willing to let your comments stand or fall on their merits.

    And I’ll say this again, IMO all this talk about the horse race is a waste of time.

  508. #508 Brainstorms
    October 23, 2015

    So the questions of fact will go to the jury to be decided. So ultimately … whether Steyn’s words are considered opinions is a jury question. … Juries are scary – because no matter how perfect your case – 12 random people (or 9 in some states) off the street can always rule against you.

    Which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

    What the jury will easily realize is that Steyn was maliciously attempting to prevent Mann from exercising Mann’s First Amendment Freedom of Speech via publishing his results on this subject — because Steyn doesn’t like what Mann has to say.

    So Steyn maliciously attempts character assassination of Mann in this effort to keep Mann from publishing — and, by association, to prevent other climate scientists from getting published.

    Steyn has been maliciously attempting to prevent Mann’s Free Speech from reaching the public and reaching politicians — so as to prevent Mann from having any influence on energy policy.

    So, in a sense, Dan is correct: This is a free speech issue. But Dan makes the mistake (as Steyn intends him to) of confusing the culprit: It is not Mann who wishes to squelch Steyn’s speech, it is Steyn who is trying to block Mann’s free speech.

    And given that Steyn has used obviously malicious means and intents to achieve this, he is liable to being found guilty of libel by a jury.

  509. #509 RickA
    October 23, 2015

    Brainstorms #508:

    1. Steyn was criticizing stuff Mann had already published.

    2. Steyn didn’t sue Mann over what Mann had published.

    3. The jury gets to decide malice also – so we will see if you are right.

    4. I agree this is a free speech case.

  510. #510 Brainstorms
    October 23, 2015

    Steyn was not merely criticizing stuff Mann had already published. The fact that Mann had published is what Steyn felt threatened about.

    It’s true that Steyn’s means of preventing Mann from exercising his free speech rights was not to sue him. Steyn’s technique was criminal: It was to defame Mann in a way that was malicious and without merit, with an intent to cause Mann to lose credibility, to cause journals to refuse to further publish his papers, and to cause politicians and public officials to refuse to listen to him and pay attention to his results.

    This is clearly an attempt to block Mann’s speech — by blocking any effective further speech by Mann; to render his voice ineffective and to cut off Mann’s avenues of public discourse and influence. It is not merely a criticism, and Mann is not suing Steyn over a criticism.

    Mann is suing Steyn because Steyn libeled him in a malicious attempt to gag Mann, to discredit Mann, and to silence Mann — by influencing those who might publish Mann’s papers so that they will refuse to publish him in the future, and to influence policy-makers so that they will no longer grant him audience or consider his findings.

    That was (and still is) Steyn’s goal. He could have settled for publicly criticizing Mann, but Steyn knew that only criticizing him wouldn’t have gone far enough towards Steyn’s ultimate goal of silencing Mann in order to silence Mann’s speech and his message.

    So Steyn gave in to the temptation to use the illicit means of libel in a clear-cut attempt at character assassination to achieve his desires: To stop Mann from exercising his free speech rights to publish his findings, have them known by and taken seriously by the public at large and by policy makers.

    Steyn went over the line. His attempts to quash Mann’s speech was done in a criminal manner. Mann is rightfully suing Steyn for doing so.

    Any claim that Mann is suing Steyn to prevent Steyn from exercising free speech is ludicrous. That’s a classic case of blaming the woman for having been raped by the perpetrator.

    Steyn was using his speech to commit a crime. There is no First Amendment protection for that. And the crime, ironically, was to attempt deprive Mann of his First Amendment rights to be heard. He didn’t need to use the (legal) means of suing him to achieve that; he instead tried to use a more powerful weapon with more serious and far-reaching consequences: Defamation.

    So anyone who cares about freedom of speech and First Amendment rights should come down hard on Steyn and should support Mann in this case.

  511. #511 Brainstorms
    October 23, 2015

    It will not be hard for an average-skilled lawyer to outline this case to jury.

    Steyn committed the terrible mistake of making his malice and ill-intent far too obvious. Too obvious for a jury to see and understand what his intent was.

  512. #512 Narad
    October 23, 2015

    Narad #488:
    Yep – national review first filed for stay of discovery.
    Then later Mann requested that the stay be continued.
    See Mann’s brief here

    That’s a brief opposing NR’s (successful) motion. You appear to be simply regurgitating the “one-way discovery” line but badly screwing it up.

    Actually reading the dates on documents might help you avoid these pitfalls, charitably assuming that the “yep” wasn’t a genuinely pathetic attempt to alchemically transform the putting of words into my mouth to a fully formed straw man after my gastrointestinal tract had dessicated them.

  513. #513 Narad
    October 23, 2015

    ^ Unless the obfuscation gets even worse. Quoth the Mann memorandum in opposition, n.2 (boldface added):

    While Dr. Mann agrees with Mr. Steyn that discovery should move forward on Dr. Mann’s claims, discovery cannot move forward on Mr. Steyn’s counterclaims. Dr. Mann filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Steyn’s counterclaims pursuant to the anti-SLAPP Act. Accordingly discovery is stayed as to those claims until this Court rules on that motion. See D.C. Code § 16-5502(c)(1).

    If Steyn had a grain of sense, he would abandon the counterclaims promptly, which – last I checked – amounted to whining like a stuck pig over being sued in the first place.

    Reading Is Fundamental, RickA.

  514. #514 Narad
    October 23, 2015

    So anyone who cares about freedom of speech and First Amendment rights should come down hard on Steyn and should support Mann in this case.

    Um, no. Steyn, by his own grandstanding volition, is wholly irrelevant as far as the First Amendment is concerned – it’s just another defamation case.

    By contrast, the question whether anti-SLAPP decisions can be immediately appealed is a free-speech issue. The appeal (that Steyn is not part of) is the only part of this exercise that is of any First Amendment interest whatever.

    Mann’s choice of venue is also something that I’m not particularly interested in, but I doubt that he expected this result from the lawfare gambit. (And I do mean “gambit.”)

  515. #515 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 24, 2015

    1. Steyn was criticizing stuff Mann had already published.

    Steyn also libeled Dr. Mann. Did you forget that again?

    Many hundreds of non-scientists have “criticizing stuff Mann had already published:” a tiny few scientists have done so, and a great many more have awarded him for his “stuff” (we call it “science”).

  516. #516 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 24, 2015

    “Steyn committed the terrible mistake of making his malice and ill-intent far too obvious. Too obvious for a jury to see and understand what his intent was.”

    The lawyers for the defendants would be incompetent if they let the case to heard by a jury; while the judge will set the actual exemplary damages award (monetary and behavioral), judges also some times ask juries to discuss what those exemplary damages should be. Juries traditionally loathe defendants who lie out of malice and waste the court’s time as well as the jury’s time (most of whom do not want to be jurors).

  517. #517 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 24, 2015

    “If Steyn had a grain of sense, he would abandon the counterclaims promptly, which – last I checked – amounted to whining like a stuck pig over being sued in the first place. Reading Is Fundamental, RickA.”

    If either of the defendants had any sense, they would not have libeled Dr. Mann in the first place.

  518. #518 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 24, 2015

    “Mann’s choice of venue is also something that I’m not particularly interested in, but I doubt that he expected this result from the lawfare gambit. (And I do mean “gambit.”)”

    One can speculate wildly, however. 🙂 I speculate that Dr. Mann fully expected an apology and public retraction to “settle” the law suit. Scientists unfortunately expect other adults to behave rationally and in their best interests, but is not the case when it comes to people like Steyn. Dr. Mann might have been surprised when his demand for a retraction was not accepted.

  519. #519 RickA
    October 24, 2015

    Desertphile #518:

    You said “The lawyers for the defendants would be incompetent if they let the case to heard by a jury; ”

    In order for a case not to be heard by a jury, both sides have to stipulate to a trial by Judge.

    If either party doesn’t wish that – it goes to the jury.

    Trial by jury is a constitutional right – but one which can be waived by both parties.

    The judge cannot willy nilly say a case or fact issue doesn’t get to go to the jury and neither can the defendants (by themselves).

    Desertphile – are you a lawyer? Because you say a lot of stuff which about the law and trial procedures which is incorrect.

    Just checking.

  520. #520 Brainstorms
    October 24, 2015

    Um, RickA, they could have, like, y’know, settle out of court. Which is perhaps how this should have been resolved in the first place.

    And that’s putting aside the notion that Steyn never should have shot his mouth off in the first place.

    But to Steyn, he had to shoot his mouth off, else he wouldn’t have progressed towards his ultimate goal: To gag Mann, prevent him from succeeding in further publishing his results, and to dissuade other climate scientists from making public knowledge of the facts of AGW and their coming consequences.

    Steyn’s intent that created this entire circus was to block Mann from successfully speaking out on this subject and making it known. He also wanted to discredit any other climate scientists, by tarring them with the same defamatory brush, through implication. (I.e., Anyone who publishes something that agrees with the results that Mann has published is also committing fraud.)

    The legal issue, is, of course, not that Steyn is attempting to squash free speech on the AGW subject, it’s that his tactic to do so, libel, was criminally actionable. Mann is taking Steyn to court to address the damage to his reputation that Steyn was maliciously and intentionally trying to cause.

    Steyn’s motivation for doing so is, as I pointed out, made painfully obvious by Steyn’s own set of publications. He’s hung his own neck.

    Hence Desertphile’s statement: “The lawyers for the defendants would be incompetent if they let the case to heard by a jury.” Any jury will see right through this and convict. Best to settle out of court, voice his unhappiness with reality in a legal manner in the future, and stop trying to gag people who voice what for him are Inconvenient Truths.

  521. #521 RickA
    October 24, 2015

    Brainstorms #520:

    They could settle – but I doubt Steyn will be interested in doing so.

    He didn’t in his famous Canadian free speech case – he took it all the way to victory.

    He wants to get a jury verdict that he did not commit libel.

    All the news organizations that filed amicus briefs want the same thing – because it impacts all their opinion writers.

    Mann has to prove his reputation was damaged.

    That is going to be hard to do.

    I already thought Mann’s graphs were fraudulent – because they are carefully constructed to help Mann advocate and intended to deceive people.

    I am sure Mann went through dozens of iterations looking for the best presentation – the biggest hockey stick he could create – that was his purpose.

    You didn’t think Mann’s graphs were fraudulent.

    Did Steyn change either of our minds with his writing?

    Nope.

    It was funny and a good piece of writing – but I doubt Steyn changed very many minds.

    People like me read it and nodded our heads “yes”.

    People like you read it and shook their heads “no”.

    I totally disagree with you about this gagging Mann thing you have going – but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    I also disagree with your assessment of the case.

    Steyn is going to win.

    I am 97% sure.

  522. #522 Brainstorms
    October 24, 2015

    I also doubt Steyn will be interested in doing so. He has displayed a history of self-destructive choices such as this.

    I think if any of those news organizations woke up and realized that if they crossed Steyn by publicizing the truth of AGW and its consequences, they then run the risk of having Steyn organize & hurl false & malicious reputation-damaging diatribe at them to get them to yield their free speech rights on the subject. (Not that I expect his to happen — but this is the core point of the circus.)

    It won’t take much for the jury to realize that an academic lives & dies by his reputation, and that an accusation of outright fraud impacts that. Many such cases (of actual fraud) have been in the news the past several years. Steyn is too transparent in his malice & intent to gag Mann by libeling him to cause this damage.

    Because such damage in the necessary wedge Steyn needs to effect the gagging of Mann and associated intimidation to get other climate scientists to lose or give up their free speech on the subject of AGW and its coming consequences.

    Steyn, rather self-servingly, wants to keep Mann, et al, from influencing public policy so that Steyn’s “precious lifestyle” won’t be impacted by any attempts to mitigate the damage and costs of global overheating. (He has no qualms about helping to kill people and cause massive property damage and loss to achieve this selfish goal.)

    Your views on Mann’s graphs are quaint… but irrelevant to Mann’s case. Steyn will have to prove they are fraudulent to hope to win his case. Since they’re not, he won’t. Hence, his lawyers should be strongly counseling him to settle out of court. Which he’s likely too egotistical to do, so… curtains for Steyn.

    Also, your accusations of academic misconduct by Mann are equally humorous and equally irrelevant to Mann’s case and to the public at large.

    The point is the use of malicious libel in an attempt to defame in order to stifle free speech to serve a (foolish) self-interest.

    So, as you point out, it is not a matter of what the public thinks of the publications, scientifically. But Steyn wants everyone to think this — and wants the findings to be discredited so that he can get on with his “precious lifestyle”.

    Much as you’ve already indicated to everyone on this blog that you prefer to do. Hence your support of Steyn. And your attempts to poo-poo what I’m pointing out.

  523. #523 RickA
    October 24, 2015

    Brainstorms #522:

    It is a little more complicated than you indicate.

    Mann is the plaintiff and he had the burden of proving libel. He also has the burden of proving malice because he is a public figure.

    Part of Mann’s burden in proving libel is proving the statement made about him is not an opinion – because opinion cannot be libel – as a matter of law.

    If he finishes his case and is not able to show the statement isn’t an opinion or doesn’t prove malice -Steyn can rest with no proof presented, and the parties make their closing statements and the case goes to the jury. If Steyn convinces the jury Mann didn’t prove malice or the statement is opinion – he wins – without the need for any evidence or witnesses or documents.

    But of course, most defendants do offer evidence and witnesses – that was just an example to show the burden of proof.

    Now Steyn plead the affirmative defense of truth.

    Steyn has the burden of proof to assert that the statement is true – so if that is what you meant than you are correct.

    However, Steyn wins even if he doesn’t try to show the graph is fraudulent (truth) if Mann fails to show the statement isn’t an opinion or made with malice.

    I hope that helps.

  524. #524 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 24, 2015

    “Mann is the plaintiff and he had the burden of proving libel. He also has the burden of proving malice because he is a public figure.”

    You mean “had,” not “has.” He had the burden of demonstrating malice, and that’s already been done.

  525. #525 RickA
    October 24, 2015

    Desertphile #524:

    No – it has not been done.

    He still has to prove it at trial.

    What you are referring to (I assume) is that the court had to assume it was true as plead for purposes of deciding the motion to dismiss (and only for that purpose).

    On a motion to dismiss the Court has to take all pleadings of the non-moving party as true and make all factual inferences in the non-moving parties favour.

    It is still “has”.

  526. #526 Brainstorms
    October 24, 2015

    It is a little more complicated than you indicate.

    Aye, and there’s the rub. Juries don’t like complications. And the lawyers will help to make things simple — even to the point of making them too simple.

    Steyn helped Mann by making it too obvious that he was malicious. (His publications ooze it. Continuously. Slam dunk-o for Mann’s lawyers to show that.)

    Steyn cannot demonstrate that Mann committed fraud, and the jury will easily be led to see that this is libel, especially when coupled with Steyn’s oozing malice and his equally strong motivation to libel Mann.

    It’s not an opinion: Steyn made the mistake of stating it as a fact. Oops… Better settle out of court!

    Juries want and need to see simple things to draw simple conclusions. It’s simple obvious that Steyn holds malice towards Mann. It’s equally simple obvious that Steyn stated a fact that was not true.

    And the thing that brings it home is that it’s simple obvious to show a jury what Steyn’s strong motivation was, and why he needed to defame Mann to reach his goal.

    Because it’s simple obvious that Steyn wasn’t publishing just to air an opinion. He was charging towards a goal — he wanted to effect something. He had an objective, and he was amped up and determined to reach that goal.

    And he simply went over the line in his fury and committed a crime to reach it.

    Simple. Obvious.

    Jury see, jury like…

    …Jury find for the plaintiff.

  527. #527 RickA
    October 24, 2015

    Brainstorms #526:

    We will have to agree to disagree.

    Or wait and see.

  528. #528 Brainstorms
    October 24, 2015

    Our agreement is meaningless, of course.

    The jury will decide the facts for us. (How nice of them.)

  529. #529 Marco
    October 25, 2015

    “I already thought Mann’s graphs were fraudulent – because they are carefully constructed to help Mann advocate and intended to deceive people.”

    No need to tell us once again you are an idiot, RickA. We already know you are.

    The only other alternative is that Mike Mann is some kind of superhuman, who knew that his graph would be in the SPM of the IPCC TAR two years after its publication, and that another 5 years later some Republican politicians would decide to make that graph the subject of a Scopes-like trial. After all, it wasn’t until after that experience that Mann started to become active in the media.

  530. #530 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    October 25, 2015

    #521
    “I already thought Mann’s graphs were fraudulent – because they are carefully constructed to help Mann advocate and intended to deceive people.”

    To help Mann advocate what?
    As other scientists using different methods have reached similar results and produced almost non-distinguishable graphs, does this indicate that they too “intended to deceive people?”
    Is the fact that MBH’s results have been validated again and again proof of a conspiracy?

  531. #531 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    October 25, 2015

    I urge all participants in this and other discussions to clearly indicate which comment or comments they’re replying to. As comments are numbered, this is easy to do.

  532. #532 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 25, 2015

    PAGING Greg Laden

    I cannot figure out what your email address is, and the “contact” page does not work on my Windows XP computer.

    I am wondering if you, Greg, would consider brokering a wager, and hold the prize for the winner, if anyone wants to accept the wager.

    1) I am willing to wager US$300 that Dr. Mann wins the law suit against Steyn, National Review, CEI, etc.

    2) I am willing to wager US$50 that Steyn will refuse to settle out of court, but one or all of the other defendants will settle if the judge allows the case to be “split.”

    3) I am willing to wager US$100 that National Review will be required to publish an apology and retraction.

    4) I will place $450 in escrow, if Greg Laden is willing to hold it, to be matched by a similar amount by the first person to accept the wager.

    5) If I win any or all wagers, I will donate the profit to the scientist defense fund.

    David Rice
    October 25, 2015

  533. #533 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 25, 2015

    “I already thought Mann’s graphs were fraudulent – because they are carefully constructed to help Mann advocate and intended to deceive people.”

    No need to tell us once again you are an idiot, RickA. We already know you are.

    And even the world’s ice masses are obeying Dr. Mann! Talk about an amazing super power! What next— Obama faking his certificate of live birth, when Hawai’i was still located in Africa?

  534. #534 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 25, 2015

    “I already thought Mann’s graphs were fraudulent – because they are carefully constructed to help Mann advocate and intended to deceive people.”

    To help Mann advocate what? As other scientists using different methods have reached similar results and produced almost non-distinguishable graphs, does this indicate that they too “intended to deceive people?” Is the fact that MBH’s results have been validated again and again proof of a conspiracy?”

    I already know what “Ricka’s” answer is: CRICKETS.WAV

    Evidence suggests M, B, and H didn’t even add the modern instrumentation data to the graph until Mann’s thesis adviser suggested it. Maybe “Ricka” and his cult should persecute that shadowy, mysterious, all-powerful adviser instead of Mann.

    Personally I would *LOVE* to know what this agenda was/is that “Ricka” and his cult believe in.

  535. #535 RickA
    United States
    October 25, 2015

    Dr. Mann is on record as advocating for the decarbonization of the economy.

    That is his agenda.

  536. #536 Brainstorms
    October 25, 2015

    Steyn is on record for advocating for the continued emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    That is his agenda.

    …which includes, as a consequence, the displacement of millions of people, large-scale deaths, massive property damage, permanent loss of cities and land due to flooding, disruption of weather patterns, long-term droughts, extinction of fauna, repeated flooding due to storms, increase in wildfires, extinction of fauna, loss of farmlands, reduction of crop yields, crashing of national economies, large-scale job loss, and untold human suffering.

    …all so Steyn can hang onto his “precious lifestyle”.

    That is his agenda. One that RickA seems to share.

  537. #537 Brainstorms
    October 25, 2015

    I already thought Steyn’s attacks on Mann’s graphs were fraudulent – because they are carefully constructed to help Steyn gag Mann & other climate scientists and [are] intended to deceive people.

    There — Fixed that for ya.

  538. #538 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    October 25, 2015

    #535
    “Dr. Mann is on record as advocating for the decarbonization of the economy.”

    In other words, without reason Mann advocates “for the decarbonization of the economy,” and to support this unsupportable position, he manufactures a graph “showing” that the modern temperature increase is unprecedented.

    Having answered my first question to my full satisfaction, would you be so kind as to answer the following two?

    (As other scientists using different methods have reached similar results and produced almost non-distinguishable graphs, does this indicate that they too “intended to deceive people?”

    Is the fact that MBH’s results have been validated again and again proof of a conspiracy?)

  539. #539 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 25, 2015

    Steyn is on record for advocating for the continued emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    That is his agenda.

    …which includes, as a consequence, the displacement of millions of people, large-scale deaths, massive property damage, permanent loss of cities and land due to flooding, disruption of weather patterns, long-term droughts, extinction of fauna, repeated flooding due to storms, increase in wildfires, extinction of fauna, loss of farmlands, reduction of crop yields, crashing of national economies, large-scale job loss, and untold human suffering.

    …all so Steyn can hang onto his “precious lifestyle”.

    That is his agenda. One that RickA seems to share.

    The number of humans that will need relocating by year 2100, business as usual, is roughly 600,000,000. That does not include the more than 800,000,000 people who currently get their protein from the world’s seas and oceans (not factoring population growth from now to year 2100), who must find different sources of protein (I suggest eating unwanted babies, prisoners, and the inferior races).

    With a world 12f warmer, global human production will decrease by approximately 20%. People will not be able to work as long and as hard as we currently do to produce wealth.

    Dr. Mann, and all of the world’s other scientists and sane people, want to help avoid this destructive blow to humanity. DAMN HIM!

  540. #540 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 25, 2015

    Ricka: “Dr. Mann is on record as advocating for the decarbonization of the economy.”

    cosmicomics: In other words, without reason Mann advocates “for the decarbonization of the economy,” and to support this unsupportable position, he manufactures a graph “showing” that the modern temperature increase is unprecedented.

    Yes, that is the idiot’s claim: for almost 200 years all of the world’s climatologists first decided to end fossil fuel use, then discovered doing so is necessary to prevent world-wide hardship and disaster.

  541. #541 Brainstorms
    October 25, 2015

    RickA believes that if enough of humanity comes together and denies that it’s happening, then doing so will magically make it all go away.

    …then he & his fellow “believers” can go back to burning fossil fuels as part of their cherished “business as usual”. (Which he’s already said several times is his preference.)

    Because if RickA doesn’t actually believe that denying it makes it go away, then he’s actually advocating the world-wide hardship and disaster in order to maintain his “cherished lifestyle”.

    Which is it, RickA: Are you a denier, or do you want to sell Humanity down the river (to drown in the rising seas)?

  542. #542 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 25, 2015

    Brainstorms: “Which is it, RickA: Are you a denier, or do you want to sell Humanity down the river (to drown in the rising seas)?”

    The latest estimate on how much human-caused climate change will cost humanity just in lost infrastructure is more than 260 trillion USA dollars, at today’s value. Maybe “Ricka” is a homicidal sociopath who “gets off” from the thought of so much suffering and hardship.

  543. #543 Brainstorms
    October 25, 2015

    I think RickA is a sociopath who gets off from maintaining his “cherished lifestyle” with complete disregard for the impact on others in doing so.

    Hence, a sociopath. (In which case, human beings getting killed in the process has as much weight as stepping on cockroaches. ‘cept he wouldn’t have to dirty his shoes, so that’s better, ‘k?bye…)

  544. #544 Narad
    October 25, 2015

    Steyn helped Mann by making it too obvious that he was malicious. (His publications ooze it. Continuously. Slam dunk-o for Mann’s lawyers to show that.)

    That’s not what “actual malice” means.

    “The actual malice standard is not satisfied merely through a showing of ill will or ‘malice’ in the ordinary sense of the term. Rather, actual malice is the making of a statement with knowledge that it is false, or with reckless disregard of whether it is true.” Lothschuetz v. Carpenter, 898 F.2d 1200, 1206 (6th Cir.1990), citing Harte-Hanks Comm’n v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 666 (1989).

  545. #545 Brainstorms
    October 25, 2015

    Yes, that’s the legal definition. If this case were decided by a panel of three judges, you can reasonably expect that that’s the criteria that would be applied…

    …which is why Mann’s counsel will tell him, Do not waive your right for a trial by jury!

    Because, even though such jury will undoubtedly be admonished by the judge with #544, juries will be juries: A group of 12 citizens who are not lawyers or judges.

    They will see the malice… That will guide them in seeing the motivation behind statements that were made with reckless disregard to their truthfulness. Steyn made it plain that the truth of his statements were not part of his motivation — any more than “merely voicing an opinion” was not his intent.

    Steyn makes it clear that he has an agenda — and nothing is to get in the way of that agenda. A jury will see that (if Mann’s lawyer is assumed competent). Steyn’s agenda demands that he make these statements; their truthfulness is irrelevant; only their impact on Mann is important to Steyn.

    Hence, a good lawyer can easily show that the legal standard of malice is met. And it doesn’t matter whether or not Steyn fools himself into believing his statements are true; that’s irrelevant to his agenda.

    Steyn needed a weapon to wield against Mann to defame him so that his future publications would (as Steyn hoped) be refused publication as a result. And by association, other climate scientists would be more likely to be refused their voice in publishing.

    And his intent is also that Mann would hopefully not be granted audience or consideration by public policy makers as regards his findings. This is the heart of Steyn’s agenda: Prevent public policy from being influenced by Mann.

    There’s no “voicing an opinion” there. At all. It was brandishing a weapon with attempt to commit character assassination. In more ways than one, my opinion is that Steyn is guilty of attempted murder (figurative in the case of Mann, literally by the result of his efforts to block mitigation of AGW and its consequences).

  546. #546 Narad
    October 25, 2015

    They could settle – but I doubt Steyn will be interested in doing so.

    He didn’t in his famous Canadian free speech case – he took it all the way to victory.

    He wants to get a jury verdict that he did not commit libel.

    All the news organizations that filed amicus briefs want the same thing – because it impacts all their opinion writers.

    That is not even wrong. Excluding Steyn’s bumbling one, the five amicus briefs (from 27 amici) are in favor of the appeal – to which Steyn is not a party – over whether the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable. If you think Real Hard, you may be able to cipher out the fact that the point of such motions is to dismiss defamation cases.

    Steyn is a complete nonentity here.

  547. #547 Narad
    October 25, 2015

    Yes, that’s the legal definition. If this case were decided by a panel of three judges, you can reasonably expect that that’s the criteria that would be applied…

    Given that that’s exactly what would happen if your fantasy were to come true, the point stands.

  548. #548 Brainstorms
    October 25, 2015

    I’m glad that it won’t. I’d rather see a jury make the decision.

  549. #549 Stuart
    Australia
    October 25, 2015

    Jesus. If global warming meant not only the end of humanity but also the endless sycophantic, self-aggrandising crap you idiots spew, I’d consider it a small price paid.

  550. #550 Brainstorms
    October 25, 2015

    Stuart, it will not mean the end of humanity.

    It very well could spell the end of civilization (in general, or just most of them).

    That would end the spewing, including the spewing of denialist crap like yours.

    In that sense, you denialists, like the famous terrorists, would “win”. Enjoy the spoils, Stuart — as everything will have been truly spoiled.

  551. #551 Marco
    October 26, 2015

    “Dr. Mann is on record as advocating for the decarbonization of the economy.

    That is his agenda.”

    And there I was, thinking I had already pointed out there was no need for you to say you are an idiot, we already knew. But no, you just had to do it again!

    Let’s just point it out, once again: According to you, Mike Mann doctored a graph in 1998/1999, which he knew (how?) would be accepted in the scientific literature, and that he knew (how?) two years later would make it into the SPM of the IPCC report. He also already knew (how?) that some Republicans would then start a hearing about that graph another five years later, making him (in)famous enough to get himself noticed by the media, so he could, yet another few years after that, finally advocate openly for decarbonisation of the economy, along with thousands of his fellow climate scientists. The Mann (pun intended) must have a time machine or be some kind of superhuman!

  552. #552 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 26, 2015

    “I think RickA is a sociopath who gets off from maintaining his “cherished lifestyle” with complete disregard for the impact on others in doing so.”

    One sees the same behavior in grifters. They have no concept of basic human empathy for their victims: they really do believe the only reason victims are not victimizers is because the victims are just too stupid to abuse people.

  553. #553 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 26, 2015

    Narad: “That’s not what “actual malice” means.

    “The actual malice standard is not satisfied merely through a showing of ill will or ‘malice’ in the ordinary sense of the term. Rather, actual malice is the making of a statement with knowledge that it is false, or with reckless disregard of whether it is true.” Lothschuetz v. Carpenter, 898 F.2d 1200, 1206 (6th Cir.1990), citing Harte-Hanks Comm’n v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 666 (1989).”

    It appears to be the “reckless disregard” Brainstorms means when he wrote that malice is obvious. The defendants want people to believe they were and are too stupid and ignorant to know the libelous claim is false— even though three minutes of checking would have told them the claim is false.

  554. #554 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 26, 2015

    @112. RickA :“I am not denying that our CO2 emissions are a focing [sic]. I am saying we cannot detangle [sic] and tease out how much of the forcings are natural and how much human because the human signal is too small relative to the noise, over the short period we are looking at.”

    There he goes with his “we” again. Geophysicists can, and have, determined what warming and cooling has been, and is, being caused by humans. “Ricka” is banking his politics on the false and fraudulent argument that the world’s scientists don’t know what they say they know.

  555. #555 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 26, 2015

    Brainstorms: “I’m glad that it won’t. I’d rather see a jury make the decision.”

    Well, a jury once concluded Orenthal Simpson didn’t murder two people…..

  556. #556 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 26, 2015

    Stuart: Jesus. If global warming meant not only the end of humanity but also the endless sycophantic, self-aggrandising crap you idiots spew, I’d consider it a small price paid.

    The end of the military industrial societies would indeed be a good thing, in the long term; it’s the suffering and expense in between that’s the bitch.

  557. #557 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 26, 2015

    Brainstorms: Stuart, it will not mean the end of humanity. It very well could spell the end of civilization (in general, or just most of them).

    In the past it was crackpots and paranoid lunatics who planned for the end of human civilization; now it’s biologists, oceanographers, economists, physicists…. a few days ago the ranch where I live and work sent more heirloom seeds to the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, for the rare tomatoes that have been propagated in isolation for the past 55 years here. Bill Gates gave us $40 to cover the expense of shipping. No, really.

  558. #558 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 26, 2015

    Marco: Let’s just point it out, once again: According to you, Mike Mann doctored a graph in 1998/1999, which he knew (how?) would be accepted in the scientific literature, and that he knew (how?) two years later would make it into the SPM of the IPCC report. He also already knew (how?) that some Republicans would then start a hearing about that graph another five years later, making him (in)famous enough to get himself noticed by the media, so he could, yet another few years after that, finally advocate openly for decarbonisation of the economy, along with thousands of his fellow climate scientists. The Mann (pun intended) must have a time machine or be some kind of superhuman!

    Dr. Mann is even more fiendishly clever than the Kenyan Muslim Socialist Communist currently in the White House! And he has the same time traveling machine!

  559. #559 RickA
    October 26, 2015

    The juvenile insults being made in this thread over the last day or so are amusing.

    Unless you are a climate scientist you know no more than I.

    At least I admit my lack of knowledge.

    While you (desertphile, marco, brainstorms, stuart) pretend to a knowledge you don’t actually have. And are so certain you are right.

    Dr. Mann used to be a scientist, a long time ago.

    Now he is a lobbyist – trying to convince policymakers to decarbonize the world economy.

    He is trying to save the world – for the children.

    Noble cause corruption.

    The ends justifies the means.

    So yes – I believe Dr. Mann carefully worked on his graphs, his papers, picking and choosing the series to put in or take out, when to truncate or start them, whether to use them upside down or not, censoring statistics and results when they didn’t produce the result (his story) he wanted.

    He has a point of view and he is spinning his data and graphs to advocate his policy position – we have to decarbonize the world! Now.

    He and his cadre of like minded climate science advocates have lost their credibility with me.

    I no longer trust anything they have to say – as they are no longer just reporting the facts – they are spinning the facts to try to encourage certain actions which they think would be the best actions to take.

    We are all entitled to our opinion and that is mine.

    Your recent childish comments do make me wonder how old you all are?

    Maybe I have been talking to teenagers, while thinking I have been talking to adults.

  560. #560 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 26, 2015

    Ricka: The juvenile insults being made in this thread over the last day or so are amusing.”

    As soon as you are worthy of anything less than #1 being laughed at and #2 being pitied, you will remain an object of entertainment. It’s your character flaw, not that of the science promoters here.

  561. #561 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    October 26, 2015

    #559
    “Unless you are a climate scientist you know no more than I.”
    RickA

    This is patent nonsense. The attainment of knowledge doesn’t start at nothing and then jump to expertise. There are different levels, and your knowledge of climate science leaves much to be desired. The information you possess comes from sources that provide misinformation, not information, and you stubbornly refuse to be corrected. You suggest that climate scientists know more than you, but you consistently reject their results. You are incapable of answering legitimate questions, e.g. regarding the natural forcing(s) you claim are responsible for our warming climate. You almost never back up your assertions with links to scientific papers, and when you do, you show that you haven’t understood what you’ve read. You have no understanding of chronology or logic, and turn the latter on its head by confusing cause with effect. You are a persistent, painful-to-observe manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your thoroughgoing incompetence prevents you from recognizing that some of the persons who comment here have more scientific knowledge than you (or I ) will ever have.

    “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    This statement presupposes that the reader knows the difference between opinions and facts, and it’s clear that you don’t.

  562. #562 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 26, 2015

    RickA, project much? You have way too much time on your hands.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/learned-from-debating-science-with-trolls.html
    wili in the comment section of the above linked article:

    Nice article and comments. In my experience, Scott D. Weitzenhoffer’s comment on arguing with Creationists applies equally well to most denialists: 

    “Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

  563. #563 dean
    United States
    October 26, 2015

    Dr. Mann used to be a scientist, a long time ago.

    Yes, yes you do admit your lack of knowledge, usually through statements like that one. Do you paint all of the scientists who support him, and who have vetted his work, with the same brush? Let’s see.

    He and his cadre of like minded climate science advocates have lost their credibility with me.

    Guess you do.

    I deal with a host of people who are just as ignorant on a vaccines and their safety as you are on, well, it seems a lot of things. Their comments are the same type as yours: bits of articles selectively picked from different places, with parts left out to misrepresent the meaning. Blatant misrepresentations of what the science community says on vaccine safety (climate science). Total distortions of the data and studies to falsely studies as the “misuse of statistics”. They are as arrogant, and unwilling to accept – hell, even try to understand, explanations, as you.

    Is there some school folks like you, who apparently woke up one day and said “You know, I don’t understand a whit of what the scientists say about XYZ, so I’m going to go this denialist school and learn how to lie about it, then bob and weave to avoid having to deal with facts” attend? Because the behavior you show in denying climate science is essentially the same as that shown by the anti-vacc people, the anti-evolution people, the anti-relativity people colleagues have told me about. The only thing more astounding than your ignorance is the pride you apparently take in it.

  564. #564 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    October 26, 2015

    #559
    RickA has finally, although indirectly, chosen to answer the last two questions I asked in #520:

    “As other scientists using different methods have reached similar results and produced almost non-distinguishable graphs, does this indicate that they too “intended to deceive people?”

    Is the fact that MBH’s results have been validated again and again proof of a conspiracy?”

    RickA’s answers are yes and yes:

    “He [Mann] and his cadre of like minded climate science advocates have lost their credibility with me.

    I no longer trust anything they have to say – as they are no longer just reporting the facts – they are spinning the facts to try to encourage certain actions which they think would be the best actions to take.”

    Confronted with this, I imagine that RickA would deny that he engages in conspiracist ideation. That’s what denialists do.

  565. #565 RickA
    October 26, 2015

    At least I am polite when I communicate.

    I do not call people liar, denialist or what amounts to crazy.

    You are rude.

  566. #566 Obstreperous Applesauce
    October 26, 2015

    That’s the ticket! When people get fed up with plain old trolling, start tone trolling.

    You can call what you do ‘communication’ when you actually listen to what people are saying to you and then give an engaged response.

  567. #567 Marco
    October 27, 2015

    “At least I am polite when I communicate”

    No you are not. Ignoring contrary evidence is not polite. It is, in fact, rude.

    So far you have failed to show any evidence whatsoever that Mike Mann doctored any graphs (issue 1) to support his advocacy (issue 2). Issue 2 should be oh-so easy for you to prove: just show us some op-eds or other articles which show Mike Mann was advocating decarbonisation of the economy *before* 1998. Note that media presence is an absolute prerequisite for issue 2 of your claim to even have the slightest merit: Mann could not advocate for anything if he does not have a forum, and thus would not have any incentive to doctor his graphs to support his advocacy even if one was inclined to believe Mann would be willing to doctor graphs to support his advocacy.

    Issue 1 has already been addressed in the scientific literature, of course, which would at the very best (for you, that is) suggest that Mann is enormously bad at doctoring graphs to give a desired picture (the ‘upside-down’ proxy is a good one, since removing it or including it in the ‘right’ direction (or rather, what some claim is the ‘right’ direction) would make the MCA *colder* in the reconstruction…exactly opposite to what you and your ilk claim Mann is trying to do with his reconstructions).

  568. #568 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    October 27, 2015

    Cosmicomics: “Confronted with this, I imagine that RickA would deny that he engages in conspiracist ideation. That’s what denialists do.”

    The spooky part is, one can predict traits about “Ricka’s” life and physiology based on his his rejection of reality, to good confidence. According to studies and surveys done on and with denialists, the odds are very good (better than 60%) “Ricka” is the first son of his mother’s; the odds are better than average that his father or father-figure was a totalitarian tyrant more than the USA average. The odds are better than average that he has a larger amygdala than the human average, and a smaller than average anterior cingulate cortex.

  569. #569 Dan
    Las Vegas
    November 6, 2015

    Been awhile since I checked in due to professional obligations. Kind of missed by daily of delusion that is par for the course on this site….

    One comment stuck out like a sore thumb. Desertphile, in post 524, is absolutely wrong, and RickA is absolutely right in post 525. Mann has not met his burden regarding malice. That is ultimately a factual dispute for the jury decide. As Rick rightly notes (and I said many moons ago) the court had to presume Mann can meet his burden to prove malice when adjudicating motions to dismiss.

    All that ruling means is that Mann, based on the allegations in his complaint, has pled sufficient facts to hold Steyn liable IF he can prove his allegations. He can therefore proceed with discovery in an attempt to adduce the necessary evidence.

    Whether he actually meets his burden, at trial, is a completely different story and a far higher hurdle to clear…

  570. #570 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    November 6, 2015

    Dan The Lawyer: “One comment stuck out like a sore thumb. Desertphile, in post 524, is absolutely wrong, and RickA is absolutely right in post 525. Mann has not met his burden regarding malice.”

    The issue has already been explained to you, many times. Don’t come here and expect pity for your learning impairment: that is a job for professionals.

    You have already been told:

    #1: Two (2) judges already ruled that Dr. Mann is likely to prevail, and that means malice has been demonstrated;

    #2: Steyn, NR, and CEI already met the burden for proof for malice; and that prima facie evidence has already been stipulated, provided by the defendants;

    #3: In the USA, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) dictates how malice is demonstrated, and two (2) judges already ruled in Dr. Mann’s favor;

    #4: The defendants claimed constitutional privilege, and two (2) judges cited Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 474 U.S. 953 (1985) refuting and dismissing that claim, finding mens rea present;

    #5: The recent judge ruled Dr. Mann has clean hands in their Hail Mary “SLAPP” assertion, and the appeal is the only thing preventing the case from being decided in Dr. Mann’s favor.

    A lawyer would know these things, Dan The Lawyer; a lawyer would have remembered these facts after people here explained them to her or him several times, Dan The Lawyer.

  571. #571 Lee Grove
    United States
    November 6, 2015

    Desertphile,
    Go easy on dim Dan, as he has chosen to live in a future dust storm, aka, Las Vegas: Dust in the Wind…
    Though at least he’ll go quickly.

  572. #572 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    November 8, 2015

    Lee Grove: Go easy on dim Dan, as he has chosen to live in a future dust storm, aka, Las Vegas: Dust in the Wind…Though at least he’ll go quickly.”

    Indeed, but…. why can’t he also go quietly? Oy, vey! (As my Irish mother, the good Catholic, used to say.) The issue of malice, when applied to USA tort litigation, has been explained to Dan The Lawyer here several times, and he still insists the opposite of the law is the law. The doctrine of “depraved indifference to the truth” dictates that malicious intent is assumed: the defendants are required to formally contest that assumption, otherwise it is stipulated by all parties in a law suit.

    Steyn’s words themselves meet Dr. Mann’s burden to demonstrate malice; a defense lawyer would know that; a lawyer could look up the precedents in two or three minutes, and understand that.

    In a prima facie case of libel, the defendants must contest the assumption of mens rea and the only way the defendants in this case can do that is to argue they did not know the false claim was false when Steyn made it and they published it (that is, they would have to state it was ignorance and not malice that caused Steyn to write what he did). Sane adults would have done that immediately and apologized, avoiding a law suit.

  573. #573 Brainstorms
    November 8, 2015

    Sane adults would have admitted that humans are causing rapid global overheating and done that immediately, avoiding loss of life, loss of property, mass extinctions, …, etc.

  574. #574 Dan
    Las Vegas
    November 12, 2015

    Desertphile: Too bad the existence of malice, or lack thereof, is a FACTUAL ISSUE for the jury to decide. Judges decide issues of law (i.e., whether Mann has to show malice); jurors decide issues of fact (whether malice actually exists).

    You have yet to cite to any legal article (and there are many) in support of your position.

    I have already publicly identified myself; so yes, I am a lawyer, and yes, I understand the difference between issues of and issues of fact. Even if the judges ruled that Mann was “likely to succeed” in the manner in which you interpret, it makes no difference. The only opinion that matters is that of the jury when it comes to factual disputes

  575. #575 Dan
    Las Vegas
    November 12, 2015

    Desertphile, you are too stupid to realize that your own posts prove my point. Two judges have ruled “Mann is likely to prevail.” So? If they truly think that (and they don’t; they just mean Mann met the burden to plead sufficient facts), the fact that they think it is “likely” means it is not settled whether Mann has shown malice.

    If Mann has already shown malice, like you claim, the case would be over and would not proceed to the jury. What judges think on factual issues are only material to the extent that the permit a party to avoid dispositive motions. Once that threshold is met, all factual decisions are decided by the jury.

    Nice try

    Also, if Mann is so sure of his position, why doesn’t he file for summary judgment? I will tell you why — he will lose, because the issue of malice, again, is a factual issue for the jury to decide.

    On that note, I am waiting for a verdict as we speak (hence, my sporadic posting). I could not care less what the judge thinks about the Plaintiff’s factual allegations, and whether he met his burden of proof on issues of fact. I care a whole lot what the jury thinks.

  576. #576 Brainstorms
    November 12, 2015

    The task of showing a jury that malice for Mann (& science in general) simply oozes out of the pores of Mark Steyn will be like shooting fish in a barrel. With the water removed. His malice is a matter of public record — records that Steyn himself created. Proudly.

    Mann wants this to go to trial — the publicity will be good for the results he found — and which others have verified over the last 15+ years. A summary judgment would make it go away too quickly & quietly. The public needs to have their noses rubbed in this (by the all-too-cooperative media).

    When this gets near a jury, Steyn’s lawyers will be pressing him hard to settle. If Steyn isn’t all the more stupid for not having any lawyers to counsel him. He’s too stupid to realize what he’s facing — which is the same hubris he demonstrated by libeling Mann in the first place. He’s too damn proud of his wrong –and now illegal– position against reality.

  577. #577 Ed
    New Jersey
    November 20, 2015

    Commentators on this blog are adamant that Mark Steyn’s position on climate change is wrong.

    I agree that the planet is getting warmer. It has also been warming since the Ice Ages. Like a human being, the planet changes with age. Is it conceivable that whatever warming may be occurring results from its natural aging process, and not as a result of mankind?

    Thoughts?

  578. #578 Marco
    November 20, 2015

    Possible, but very unlikely. It has actually been cooling since the Holocene Climate Optimum, until humans started to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    It isn’t really hard to understand, actually, unless one’s ideology tells you “it cannot be true”.

  579. #579 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    November 20, 2015

    Ed: “Commentators on this blog are adamant that Mark Steyn’s position on climate change is wrong. “

    You mean “Steyn libeling Dr. Mann is and was wrong.”

    As for Steyn’s “position on climate change,” it is contrary to all of the evidence, therefore it is wrong. See the problem now?

  580. #580 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    November 20, 2015

    Marco: “It has actually been cooling since the Holocene Climate Optimum….”

    Indeed. “Ed” wants people to believe all of the world’s climatologists, physics, and astronomers just some how “missed” the “real reason” for why Earth is currently warming.

  581. #581 Brainstorms
    November 21, 2015

    See the problem now?

    “The problem is in the mind of the denier.”

  582. #582 Tim the plumber
    UK
    November 30, 2015

    Odd that Mann is delaying the case.

    Usually the plaintif is keen to get to court. Not here. Is that anything to do with the lack of any scientists coming along to support him?

    None at all……

  583. #583 Julian Frost
    South Africa
    November 30, 2015

    @Tim the Plumber, You didn’t even read he comments above. Mann is not delaying the case. Steyn is.

  584. #584 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    November 30, 2015

    Tim The Dumber: “Odd that Mann is delaying the case.”

    Heh! That would indeed be very odd.

  585. #585 Cheerful Charlie
    Houston, Texas
    December 3, 2015

    Opinion or factual statement. If I post “John Doe is a thief” it is a statement of fact and my opinion (if I am not lying about my belief”. So legally, faced with a legal problem if i make a supposedly factual claim that is false. Even if I believe it. So legally, it would be best for me to state this is an opinion. The quetion is, will a jury buy that clim and not consider my statement “John Doe is a thief” as a claimed statement of fact. One can guess wht point of view my lawyer will put forth to the jury.

    Steyn here seems to have not done due diligence before writing that Mann tortured the data etc. so that is another issue. Since Mann was cleared of wrong doing by several studies, Steyn either ignored that information, or failed to check that information before making a claim.This failure on Steyn’s part is going to be problematic I would think.

    I also seem to remeber in the deep recesses of my mind that there have actually been some cases where people have made factual statements but in such a defamatory manner they got successfully sued for defamation despite the grain of truth behind their statements. Some googling did not get me examples.

    YMMV

  586. #586 RickA
    United States
    December 3, 2015

    Cheerful Charlie #585:

    First check out this page which has a bunch of examples of opinion in the defamation context:

    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges

    Then check out this page which links to the opinion page – which is a primer on DC defamation law:

    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/district-columbia-defamation-law

    I found them very helpful.

  587. […] Among the “experts” giving testimony will be the Canadian conservative shock jock Mark Steyn. Steyn’s relationship to global warming is similar to, say, Rush Limbaugh’s relationship to women’s rights. He is a bloviating ignoramus who treats the truth like so much dog poo on the bottom of his shoe. If he actually knows anything about climate science, he is doing a very good job of hiding it. His major contribution to the discussion is a continuous attack on climate scientists based mostly on cherry picked quotes. In fact, he recently self published a book made up, apparently, of cherry picked quotes and related material in an effort to discredit top climate scientists. For a flavor for what he has done, check out this analysis of the quotes he used of several established climate scientists. […]

  588. #588 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 11, 2015

    Steyn’s testimony the other day is must-watch TV for anyone that cares about freedom of speech in a free society. As he said, the title of the hearing was “Data or dogma…” In his opening remarks, he said he would leave the data to the distinguished panelists with scientific backgrounds. He focused on the “dogma,” and why members of the climate cartel (particularly Dr. Mann), think different rules should apply to the issue of climate change.

    As Steyn rightly pointed out, there are current, sitting members of both houses of congress that are proponents of filing criminal charges against individuals who have the temerity to question whether current climate variation, such that it is, is man-made or due to natural reasons.

    Those of you that aren’t horrified by that fact are delusional. Never, in the history of the republic, have sitting federal legislators proposed criminalizing scientific opinion (which also begs the question: if the science is so settled, why does it need legal protection no afforded to any other scientific inquiry?)

  589. #589 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 11, 2015

    Dan: “Steyn’s testimony the other day is must-watch TV for anyone that cares about freedom of speech in a free society.”

    This is a science blog, not FOX “News.”

  590. #590 Brainstorms
    December 11, 2015

    I’m sure there are current, sitting members of both houses of congress that are proponents of filing criminal charges against individuals who have the temerity to lie while testifying before a Congressional Committee.

    Those of you that aren’t horrified by that fact are delusional.

  591. #591 dan
    United States
    December 11, 2015

    Dan, why are you still spreading false statements that people want to file charges against those who merely question the science? Aren’t you supposed to be above lying through your teeth?

  592. #592 Ed
    December 11, 2015

    Dan,

    Bravo! Well stated.

  593. #593 Marco
    December 12, 2015

    “he said he would leave the data to the distinguished panelists with scientific backgrounds”

    Actually, clearly he hasn’t. Remember that he claimed Mann tortured the data and committed fraud. In other words, he did not leave the data to those with scientific backgrounds! Steyn’s a liar, and you know it.

  594. #594 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 14, 2015

    Desertphile: The hearing was not broadcast on Fox News; it was on c-span.

    Brainstorms: What did Steyn lie about? Did you even watch the hearing?

  595. #595 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 14, 2015

    Marco: Steyn didn’t say that at the hearing. The only time, if I recall correctly, that he mentioned Mann by name was when he correctly stated that Mann, among others, falsely claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner. Steyn is absolutely correct on that point, as Mann had to withdraw his original complaint and file an amended one to omit that part about “…defaming a nobel-prize recipient.” By the way, you Mann-lovers sure do lack a sense of humor and irony.

    I mean, really, you can’t see the irony in Mann suing someone for lying about him, yet in his very complaint he lied about his credentials. The Nobel prize institute in Sweden had told him that he could not represent himself as a Nobel prize winner, yet he continued to do it.

    Steyn’s testimony focused on the, rather obvious, point that competition of ideas is an absolute necessity in a free-society, because that is how good ideas win and bad ideas lose. He also stated the, again, quite obvious fact that if an idea needs protection from our judicial system, that by itself suggests it is a bad idea because it cannot sustain itself on the merits.

  596. #596 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 14, 2015

    Dan, post #591: I absolutely am not lying that people want to file criminal charges against those who question climate science. Do you deny that, earlier this year, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse specifically proposed those who disagree with climate change be prosecuted under RICO? Do you deny that a letter was sent to the President by various scientists approving of Sen. Whitehouse’s proposal, and requesting Obama implement same?

    I would post a link for you, but I would think even you could find the evidence yourself, as there is a Sep 19, 2015 entry from THIS VERY BLOG that posts the letter in its entirety, including its approval of Sen. Whitehouse RICO recommendation.

    I swear, I couldn’t make this stuff up….

  597. #597 Chris O'Neill
    December 14, 2015

    members of the climate cartel

    It’s all a giant conspiracy.

  598. #598 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 14, 2015

    I wouldn’t say it is a conspiracy, Chris. I would say that most climate scientists have a vested interest in keeping “global warming,” “climate change,” etc., in the political spotlight because it leads to the government awarding federal grants.

    It is a conflict of interest….

  599. #599 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 14, 2015

    Yeah? So, prove it. If you’re a lawyer, you should be able to do better than your run of the mill, ditto head fodder.

    Climate science works the way all science works, through peer review. All you have done is pull some unimaginative stuff out your hinterland and bang away at it.

    Pro tip: Constantly working the same schtick helped kill Vaudeville. You should know this stuff if you’re going to hang out in Vegas, esse.

  600. #600 dean
    United States
    December 14, 2015

    I wouldn’t say it is a conspiracy, Chris. I would say that most climate scientists have a vested interest in keeping “global warming,” “climate change,” etc., in the political spotlight because it leads to the government awarding federal grants.

    I didn’t think even you were that stupid. Obviously I underestimated your ignorance.

  601. #601 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, Austrailia
    December 14, 2015


    I wouldn’t say it is a conspiracy, Chris. I would say that most climate scientists have a vested interest in keeping “global warming,” “climate change,” etc., in the political spotlight because it leads to the government awarding federal grants.

    I didn’t think even you were that stupid. Obviously I underestimated your ignorance.


    Obviously he knows that we know he doesn’t believe what he wrote: he wants other people to believe he is a moron, not a venal anti-social, homicidal sociopath. No denialist believes all of the world’s geophysicists agree about human-caused climate change out of greed: he wants his peers to believe he believes that, because that’s where his twisted sense of community comes from.

  602. #602 Chris O'Neill
    December 14, 2015

    I wouldn’t say it is a conspiracy

    A cartel is a conspiracy. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

    I won’t be giving any credence to what you say, by the way.

  603. #603 Brainstorms
    December 14, 2015

    … because it leads to the government awarding … It is a conflict of interest….

    As this is the stereotypical modus operandi of the corrupt right-wing white-collar thieves in our society, it should be hardly surprising to anyone that a right-wing denier would be calling the kettle black, so to speak.

    If the language & lifestyle of corruption is all that one lives & knows, then it follows that one will naturally assume everyone else on the planet is similarly corrupted.

    It is beyond the ken of a conservative to think that another human being could be doing something out of an altruistic concern for their fellow man. After all, to them, other people are just things to be taken advantage of, for self-centered gain.

  604. #604 Marco
    December 15, 2015

    “I mean, really, you can’t see the irony in Mann suing someone for lying about him, yet in his very complaint he lied about his credentials. The Nobel prize institute in Sweden had told him that he could not represent himself as a Nobel prize winner, yet he continued to do it. ”

    Why do you lie ? This simply is not true!

    “Steyn didn’t say that at the hearing.”
    It doesn’t matter that he didn’t. At the hearing he claimed he left the science to the scientists, but clearly he doesn’t, because he has made arguments about the *scientific* merit of Mann’s work before the hearing.

    “because that is how good ideas win and bad ideas lose”
    History shows that bad ideas have won on frequent occasions. We know Iraq was invaded using not-even-bad ideas, but outright lies (Saddam Hussein collaborating with Al Qaeda, for example). There are now more people who decide not to vaccinate their children than more than a decade ago, even though the “bad idea” has lost even in a court (thanks, Andrew Wakefield…). Nothing in biology makes sense without the theory of evolution, and yet about half of the world’s population either rejects it, or considers it “just a theory”. Bad ideas continue to float around even when they’ve been shown to outright nonsense. The court of public opinion is incapable of taking on ideas for which it does not hold sufficient understanding, and then ideology becomes the decider.

  605. #605 Marco
    December 15, 2015

    “Do you deny that, earlier this year, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse specifically proposed those who disagree with climate change be prosecuted under RICO? Do you deny that a letter was sent to the President by various scientists approving of Sen. Whitehouse’s proposal, and requesting Obama implement same? ”

    I will indeed deny that. This is not what Whitehouse proposed:
    http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/time-to-wake-up-touched-a-nerve

    Why do you lie about what Whitehouse and the scientists wanted, Dan?

  606. #606 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 15, 2015

    It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway; humans are full of buggy wetware. Science was developed to help us avoid fooling ourselves. It’s not perfect, it’s still evolving. But overall it’s the closest we’ve come to a meritocracy bar none.

    Here’s the deal, Dan; Ma Nature doesn’t give stite for people’s opinions one way or the other (legal, political, economic, religious, scientific, whatever…). She does what she does, and if you don’t know when to stop bloviating and get the hell out of the way, there will unpleasantness.

  607. #607 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, Austrailia
    December 15, 2015

    Dan: “Do you deny that, earlier this year, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse specifically proposed those who disagree with climate change be prosecuted under RICO? Do you deny that a letter was sent to the President by various scientists approving of Sen. Whitehouse’s proposal, and requesting Obama implement same?”

    Yes, and Yes— I deny it. No such things happened. Note also that if anyone had done this, or in the future will do this, every civil rights and human rights activist in the world would have been, and will be, outraged and horrified.

    So, as soon as this actually happens, do let us all know, m’kay? Thanks.

  608. #608 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, Austrailia
    December 15, 2015

    Marco: “Why do you lie about what Whitehouse and the scientists wanted, Dan?”

    Because the truth is well-known to have a liberal bias.

  609. #609 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, Austrailia
    December 15, 2015

    Brainstorms: “It is beyond the ken of a conservative to think that another human being could be doing something out of an altruistic concern for their fellow man. After all, to them, other people are just things to be taken advantage of, for self-centered gain.”

    It is typical grifter behavior: they have no concept of why people help their victims— they think the people helping just want to “take over the resource.” The Scientology crime syndicate, after being raided by the FBI, had many of its internal documents placed into the public domain, and those documents show the same behavior: the mobsters assumed that the people helping their victims had venal, sinister motives for doing so.

    Deniers of the evidence for human-caused climate change really do believe scientists and science communicators have a political agenda instead of facts.

  610. #610 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 16, 2015

    Brainstorms: I have copied and pasted, in its entirety, the letter I was referencing, which I retrieved from a September, 2015 entry by Mr. Laden. Do you see that sentence which the authors specifically reference a recent proposal by Sen. Whitehouse to use RICO laws (originally promulgated to prosecute drug dealers and mobsters) to prosecute those whose opinions differ on science change.

    Just thought I’d let you know that it did actually happen, M’kay, and civil rights groups are indeed up in arms about this and other bullying tactics utilized by the Mann-lovers and climate cartel (hence the ACLU filing an Amicus brief on Steyn’s behalf. Wait, you probably deny that to).

    Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

    September 1, 2015

    Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

    As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

    We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

    The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

    Sincerely,

    Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    (continued on page 2)
    Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
    David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
    Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
    William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
    Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
    T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
    Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
    Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
    Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
    Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

  611. #611 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 16, 2015

    Obstreporous, I actually agree with you when you state mother nature doesn’t care what people do. That is the smartest thing you have ever said. Mother nature is far too complex to concern itself with what man does, including how mankind produces and uses energy.

    There were wild climate extremes will before man existed, let alone started using fossil fuels. There was an ice age, little ice age; they used to hold winter fairs on the frozen thames; alligators used be found at the north pole, etc.

    The point is, some things are out of our control. One of them happens to be the climate. Now that you have admitted that, hopefully you can realize not only the futility, but the dire economic consequences that will follow by enacting such insane legislation as “cap and tax,” and other legislation to somehow limit carbon emissions.

    This is why the public no longer trusts the climate cartel. You all act as if extreme weather just appeared in the second half of the twentieth century, and conveniently ignore the warming and subsequent cooling that has existed for as long — and longer — then man has.

  612. #612 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 16, 2015

    Marco: Do you deny Mann claimed to be a Noble prize recipient, or do you claim he actually won a Noble prize. See

    [No linking to science denial link farms. Link removed. -gtl]

    This link includes a quite by Geir Lundestad, Professor and Director of the Nobel Institute, in which he clearly states, and I quote, “Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize….”

    Again, how do I lie? Did his original complaint against not accuse Steyn of defaming a “Nobel Prize Recipient.”

    Jesus Christ, you guys can’t even admit the glaringly obvious….

  613. #613 Desertphile
    Anywhere but Earth
    December 16, 2015

    Dan: “The point is, some things are out of our control. One of them happens to be the climate.”

    The problem is human-caused climate change.

  614. #614 dean
    United States
    December 16, 2015

    This is why the public no longer trusts the climate cartel.

    Actually, the low trust level is more due to people like you who, despite not understanding one whit of the science and refusing to try, continually lie about what is being said.

  615. #615 Greg Laden
    December 16, 2015

    Dan, your comments, and the comments to which you attempted to link, on the Nobel prize are absurd. Despite the lie contained in the source, that certificate is real. Despite Steyn’s assertion that he himself, Steyn, must have been awarded the Nobel because Ireland was awarded the Nobel (or whatever he said) by Mann’s standard, is absurd.

    A team of scientists leading the IPCC were awarded the prize. Other scientists on that team include the prize in their CV’s and no one has complained. Yes, there is a difference between a person being awarded the prize and a person contributing to an effort for which the prize was awarded. That difference is acknowledged by Mann.

    This is a red herring, a highly constructed lie, and there will be no more talk of it on this blog.

  616. #616 Marco
    December 16, 2015

    Dan, you claimed that “The Nobel prize institute in Sweden had told him that he could not represent himself as a Nobel prize winner, yet he continued to do it.”

    You did not provide any evidence for that, as is clear from your response.

    Note that Mann had a very valid excuse for making an incorrect claim – he received a certificate that strongly indicated he indeed was a co-recipient of the Nobel prize.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf

    Now, Mann has retracted that incorrect claim, contrary to your claim. Steyn, in contrast, has doubled down on his incorrect claims about Mann’s hockey stick.

  617. #617 Marco
    December 16, 2015

    ” insane legislation as “cap and tax,” and other legislation to somehow limit carbon emissions. ”

    That would be ‘insane’ legislation that has been in place for decades already: The US Acid Rain Program.

  618. #618 Marco
    December 16, 2015

    “…investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change…”

    And never will Dan see how this strongly contradicts his claim that:
    “…Sheldon Whitehouse specifically proposed those who disagree with climate change be prosecuted under RICO…”

    (even when I am being nice and interpret “those who disagree with climate change” as “those who are skeptical about the anthropogenic role in climate change”).

  619. #619 Brainstorms
    December 16, 2015

    Dan finally unmasks himself as “Dan the Denier”.

  620. #620 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 16, 2015

    Dan # 611

    “That is the smartest thing you have ever said.”

    Pfft. How would you know? You really are full of it.

    The rest of your comment is patent nonsense as well. Seriously, you get through law school, pass the bar, practice law; and the best you can do here is regurgitate weak, generalized sophistries with absolutely zero basis in science? Stop embarrassing yourself.

  621. #621 Brainstorms
    December 16, 2015

    Deniers, as a group, do not care whether they embarrass themselves or not.

    Their goal is to confound, confuse, and find any way to block mitigation of global overheating.

    Because they will do anything, embarrassment included, to preserve their precious, cherished lifestyle.

    Even to the extent of helping kill and impoverish thousands of human beings in future generations.

  622. #622 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, Austrailia
    December 16, 2015

    “Deniers, as a group, do not care whether they embarrass themselves or not.”

    Nor do they care when they are caught lying, over and over and over again. _Forbes_ newspaper (Michael Lynch) recently claimed renewable energy gets 400 times as much in subsi9dies than the fossil fuel industry.

  623. #623 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 17, 2015

    Marco, I am glad you finally admit that Mann 1) claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner, 2) which was not true, and 3) recanted same.

    As for the RICO laws, again, direct quotes were provided. If anything, my initial post failed to distinguish between criminal RICO sanctions and civil RICO sanctions. So, in abundance of caution, I will change my original quote to state that sitting members of congress want to pursue civil RICO penalties, which can be severe, against those whose opinions differ on climate change.

    Lastly, I would note that all responses to my posts consist of nothing more than ad-hominem attacks. Never does anyone post any quotes to contradict what I say.

  624. #624 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 17, 2015

    Marco: You are right, I will never see it that way, because, according to people like you, there should be no debate, and anyone who disagrees that man made climate change exists is “knowingly deceiving the American people.” That is not true. People can deny “global warming” without deceiving the American people.

  625. #625 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 17, 2015

    Jesus, Obstreporous, calm down. When I said “that is the smartest thing you have ever said,” I meant on this blog. Obviously, I don’t know what you say outside of this blog.

    A tad sensitive, are we?

  626. #626 Brainstorms
    December 17, 2015

    Dan the Denier, “sitting members of congress want to pursue civil RICO penalties, which can be severe, against those whose opinions differ on climate change.”

    Do you even understand that there is a difference between testifying by offering an opinion and testifying by claiming facts that you know are not true?

    Why do you think the latter is the former? Or can you not see any difference because your ideology tells you they are the same?

    Many here are doubting that you are a lawyer. Either that, or you actually are one, cause you lie & attempt to mislead so blithely.

  627. #627 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 17, 2015

    Huh? Do I need to use emojis?

    For the record, here’s my smartest comment:
    DNFTT.

  628. #628 Brainstorms
    December 17, 2015

    People can deny “global warming” without deceiving the American people.

    As soon as such people publish their opinions with the attempt to sway the public to their ideology, or to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the results of climate science, then they are attempting to deceive the American people. (And the rest of the world, too.)

    If they wish to deny global warming, and they keep their opinions to themselves, or they make it plain that their agenda is FUD and interference with AGW mitigation and/or climate science research, then you are correct.

    Publishing such opinions as facts is deceiving. See #626 above if you still are unable to grasp these simple concepts.

  629. #629 dean
    United States
    December 17, 2015

    Never does anyone post any quotes to contradict what I say.

    Is that what you think? ‘Cause dude, that makes you seem even more an ass than you’ve already demonstrated. (Not an ad hominem, simply a fact.)

  630. #630 Marco
    December 18, 2015

    “Marco, I am glad you finally admit ”

    Dan, thanks for not responding to the argument I made, which is that you told an untruth (let’s not call it a lie just yet). It makes the point once again that you will never understand.

    “according to people like you, there should be no debate, and anyone who disagrees that man made climate change exists is “knowingly deceiving the American people.” ”

    *This* is what is not true. I have no problem accepting that there are people who honestly believe AGW does not exist. People are free to debate, too, but then they better come with facts, and not with misinformation, or half-truths.
    I also *know* these poorly informed people are not the type of people that could be targeted by RICO, and thus would not be the target of the RICO Whitehouse proposes. Whitehouse made that abundantly clear in the link I gave you to read, and which you did read. Unfortunately, most of it went straight past you, since I thus provided you with a lengthy quote that contradicts what you claimed, and you *still* say:
    “Never does anyone post any quotes to contradict what I say”

    Of course, I accept the possibility that you honestly believe this to be the case. It fits with my earlier assessment that you “never will […] see how this strongly contradicts [your] claim”. I accept this possibility because I know your type of personality all too well, having encountered similar personalities in various other ‘contentious’ fields (evolution, vaccination, GMOs, nuclear power, religion, etc.).

  631. #631 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    But, Marco, can’t you see that what constitutes a “fact” is up for debate. An an example, one person could say “under President Obama, we have record unemployment,” while someone else could say “under President Obama, we have record low unemployement.” Both could be considered facts, depending on if you use the U3 or U6 employment statistics.

    Same with climate change. What you consider a “fact” someone else might think is false. The only thing Steyn did was state that Mann ignored certain facts that tended to negate his thesis. Mann could respond by saying he did no such things, and that he considered all relevant information.

    The point is, Steyn’s position is one of opinion, which by definition is not subject to libel law.

    By the way, how do you know my personality?

  632. #632 Julian Frost
    South Africa
    December 24, 2015

    The point is, Steyn’s position is one of opinion, which by definition is not subject to libel law.

    Dead wrong, Dan.
    Steyn made specific accusations of fact. . He specifically claimed that Mann distorted the data. If you don’t see the difference between that and opinion, I can’t help you.

  633. #633 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 24, 2015

    Julian Frost: “Dead wrong, Dan. Steyn made specific accusations of fact. . He specifically claimed that Mann distorted the data. If you don’t see the difference between that and opinion, I can’t help you.”

    Dan The Lawyer has had this fact explained to him many dozens of times.His understanding of the law appears to be limited to only that which he has read on “free market” and conspiracy blogs. Why, it’s almost as if Dan The Lawyer isn’t a lawyer at all….

  634. #634 Brainstorms
    December 26, 2015

    …because he’s actually Dan the Denier.

  635. #635 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    By the way, how do you know my personality?

    Because it’s well described in the Book of Revelations.

  636. #636 dean
    United States
    December 30, 2015

    The only thing Steyn did was state that Mann ignored certain facts that tended to negate his thesis.

    Are you really so stupid as to fail to recognize that this “opinion”
    a) Can be checked by looking at the data and the analysis, and
    b) Has been shown false by followup studies?

    Or are you simply so dishonest that you repeat it in the attempt to make others believe it?

  637. #637 TDiddy
    USA
    January 2, 2016

    Those of you who still believe Mann is going to prevail in his case against Steyn, or in Steyn’s case against Mann, really should read the book in question. There are so many quotes from so many scientists stating categorically that Mann’s methods were sloppy, his data flawed and his peer review nonexistent. Given the sheer volume of dissent, it will be next to impossible for Mann’s team to prove Steyn knew that Mann’s science was correct and his words were simply a smear job (which is the first hurdle he will have to jump in order to win his case.)

  638. #638 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    January 3, 2016

    TDiddy: There are so many quotes from so many scientists stating categorically that Mann’s methods were sloppy, his data flawed and his peer review nonexistent….”

    1) Please quote, here,. in writing, what you believe to be a quote from a scientist that says categorically that Mann’s methods were sloppy, his data flawed and his peer review nonexistent. Thank you in advance.

    2) Why are there more than 36 independent reproductions of the “hockey stick?”

    3) Where did all of the missing ice go?

  639. #639 Chris O'Neill
    January 3, 2016

    next to impossible for Mann’s team to prove Steyn knew that Mann’s science was correct

    Strawman.

  640. #640 Truths Avenger
    June 2, 2016

    Except Mann’s Hockey Stick was proven false back in 2004. So….

  641. #641 Desertphile
    June 2, 2016

    “Except Mann’s Hockey Stick was proven false back in 2004. So….”

    By whom? Where? When? How do you know this astonishing ‘fact’ of yours?

  642. #642 Roy
    Canada
    October 28, 2016

    I am more entertained reading these posts than I am with those commenting on Fox News articles. I didn’t think it was possible. Thank you all!